Talk:SM U-14 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi. I am reviewing your article for GA. I have made a few minor copy edits.

Comments

• The only major problem I see so far with the article is the lead. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize all major parts of the article. The lead of this article leaves out any mention of most of the article contents.
  • (Sheepish grin) The lag time between GA nominations and the review is usually longer. I had intended to expand the lead before I thought someone would start to review. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought that might be the case. Don't worry. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • OK. I've expanded it. How is the length? — Bellhalla (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Do you think it is relevant to mention that von Trapp was famous in American newspapers because of the Sound of Music? I can see some mention in a footnote of his connection to the Sound of Music, but to many readers, his fame via American newspapers as a character in the Sound of Music will likely have no relevance.
  • Perhaps you can help me make the point more clearly in the article. The mention of American newspapers was in relation to being known, by name, as the Austro-Hungarian submarine captain that sank, Léon Gambetta, a large French warship. (I only specified American because I don't have access to or knowledge of if he were known in, say, the UK). — Bellhalla (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It seems like that is an interesting factoid, but is it pertinent to the article, other than a mention in a footnote or something? It really has nothing to do with his performance as a captain of a submarine, does it? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Valid point, since this is the article about the submarine. I've converted it into a note. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. (I have interspersed replies to your two preliminary points above.) I look forward to your suggestions on how to improve the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• It looks very good. Glad you removed the von Trapp personal info into the footnote. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Conforms with MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referrenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets general context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations. Very well written. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)