Talk:Seeteufel/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 23:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose

• another series of three to test the necessary changes was the first prototype a series of three? If so, mention should be added. If not, the other series of three should be mentioned, or the sentence should be clarified to show the first series was not of three.
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
• Mention needs to be added of the same named 1856 prototype.
  • There's obviously no article on the earlier sub, but I suppose I can add a hatnote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• per this "In 1944, the Sea Devil was considered by Admiral Heye (Commanding Special Forces) to be "a promising weapon for use in commando raids." He later stated in a secret Office of Naval Intelligence report after the war that the Soviet Union had ..."
  • Full quote "I consider the Sea Devil a promising weapon for use in commando raids. It is independent of mother craft and base personnel, can land on foreign shores, commit acts of sabotage, and evade pursuit ashore or afloat. It can be taken to site by a mother ship equipped with a large crane. With an engine of higher output than that of the experimental boat, a speed of 8 to 10 knots can be obtained. Speed and radius of action could be further increased by installation of a closed-cycle engine. Intended for use in coastal waters if weather is not too rough, and on rivers, lakes and artificial lakes..." also quoted as saying "strongly believed to be unknown to the Soviets" (maybe add mention it was a well kept secret. per [1]. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I can't see any more this than a snippet, but I'll add it on your say so.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• A trick that I learned is copying the snippet you have, and searching for that, which will reveal a bit more every time. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• OK, hadn't thought of that. Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Add a year in the body for context. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It's in the first paragraph of the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure if you want to add that they left tank like prints on the ocean floor [2]. Use your discretion. Per the same source, it is the Seeteufel or Elefant, of which a mention should be added.Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It was not specifically intended as a bottom crawler, though it might have been capable of that. If it did, I imagine that it would have left tracks, but I don't trust that source. Especially since none of my other sources ever refer to it as an Elefant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

• See Marine Rundschau : Magazine for the Sea , Volume 67 (German) in which "Seeteufel, auch Elefant" matched with a fragment. See German Wikipedia, Jane's Naval Review, Suicide Squads: The Men and Machines of World War II Special Operations, German Naval Handbook. If you still aren't convinced, I will pass without it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strange, but you've convinced me. I wonder why my sources don't mention that at all?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Overview

• A very nicely written and interesting article. Short, but there's not much written elsewhere. Waiting on my last comments being responded to... If you don't mind, I'd greatly appreciate an image review of my first A-class nomination. Certainly don't feel like you have to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll try to do a bunch of reviewing tomorrow. Today was reading day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)