Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SM U-66
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted -MBK004 05:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article is about the lead boat of the German Type U 66 submaines of World War I. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No issues reported with disambig or external links. Well Done. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sources and refs look perfect. Bellhalla, your articles are always interesting reads... just FYI. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is an excellent article which meets the A-class criteria, and may already be of FA standard. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support if you provide the missing citation in the notes section. I also suggest you to switch your notes into the cref style because it's easier to comment and to maintain by others. Wandalstouring (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, when a discursive note has the same sourcing as a preceding footnote/citation, I omit the reference. In this case, [Note 5] is sourced to p. 99 of Gibson and Prendergast, as is note [29] preceding it. If you think this should be more explicity noted, I can add it in. I'm not familiar with
{{cref}}; I'll look into it. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I think that
<ref group= >is fine... —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that
- In general, when a discursive note has the same sourcing as a preceding footnote/citation, I omit the reference. In this case, [Note 5] is sourced to p. 99 of Gibson and Prendergast, as is note [29] preceding it. If you think this should be more explicity noted, I can add it in. I'm not familiar with
- Support. Excellent article. I would say this sets the standard for articles on submarines involved in the First or Second World Wars. Cla68 (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.