Talk:U-1 class submarine (Austria-Hungary)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   a few things - see below.

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Prose

• • A few issues, all minor
  • "after allowing the navies of other countries to pioneer submarine developments, in 1904 ordered the Austrian Naval Technical Committee (MTK) to produce a submarine design."
    • "in 1904" is out of place.
      • Reworded to avoid awkward phrasing
  • "When the Navy rejected the January 1905 MTK design and other designs submitted as part of a public competition as impracticable"
    • One longgg part of a sentence...
      • Split and reworded
    • What is the "MTK design"?
      • the design from the Austrian Naval Technical Committee, or MTK, referred to in the previous sentence.
        • Sorry, that was me being dumb. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Random

• • Do you really have to cite the same refs twice in the first para of "Service Career"?
    • The first one should have been for Conway's and has been changed.
  • Can we get a ref for the submerged speed (I'm assuming that it is Conway's...?)
    • I think I got this changed(?)
      • Yep! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting it on hold, but I'm not really worried that these won't get done. Yet another excellent article from you, Bellhalla! :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the comments. My replies to your concerns are interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Easy pass! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)