Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/U-20-class submarine

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.

U-20 class submarine

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. Bellhalla (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments No issues reported with regards to the external links or with dab links. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- 'Even though the Havmanden-class design was largely obsolete by the beginning of the war, four boats were ordered by the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1915, in part because construction could begin immediately' - I don't like 'in part', 'partky' and so forth. Why else was the boat ordered - I think there's room in the lead to mention another reason.
  - Reworded in the lead. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Austria-Hungary had a largely obsolete U-boat fleet at time of the outbreak of World War I' - Is it possible to expand on why it was obsolete, what it's status was at the time? It would be informative background.
  - I replaced the sentence to give more background. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'This allocation of contracts, while politically expedient, exacerbated technical problems that resulted in numerous modifications and delays' - And what were these modifications and delays? Can we expand on this? Skinny87 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regrettably, no source gives any more than that. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Replies interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it possible to get more than 2 pages of info from two books. That is a bit of a concern. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an entirely fair characterization of the sources: Two pages from Halpern were referenced (pp. 382, 383); as were four pages from Conway's (pp. 341, 343, 344, 354). Nevertheless, I understand your concerns. I've updated the summaries of the four boats of the class (written before the individual article were written), which incorporates information from other sources. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I couldn't find any major issues. Since you haven't been able to find images of any of the actual submarines in the class, you might need to consider putting the picture of the conning tower from the museum in the infobox. That picture is the closest image you have to the actual submarines, although I understand the argument that it would be better to have a complete picture from an equivalent class of submarines. Also, in my opinion it's better to combine citations at the end of a sentence instead of having them in the middle of sentences, because I think it improves readability. The FA reviewers don't seem to object to in-sentence citations, however, so I guess it's not obligatory. Anyway, good work, as usual, with the article. Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and the advice. There is a fair-use image for U-21 (File:SM U-21 (Austria-Hungary).jpg) that could be used, but I'm always a little skittish about testing the NFCC-ers since there is a reasonable free image (of Havmanden) available. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the only way to have an actual picture of the subject is via a fair use image, I usually go ahead with it, but it's up to you. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cla. Havmanden isn't this class :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The image has been updated to use the FU image of U-21. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - meets the A-class criterion. A comment:
- "U-23 then came under attack from the Italian destroyer Airone; after first trying to ram the U-boat, the destroyer deployed an explosive paravane. When the paravane came into contact with the submerged U-23, it blew debris into the air, sinking the submarine with all hands.[9]"
  - I tried to c/e the first sentence but didn't do a good job. :) The second sentence here also is weird: "it blew debris into the air"? Why not just say that the sub was sunk? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Drama, perhaps? I guess because so many U-boat sinkings tend to be described as "…dropped three depth charges and some oil came to the surface…". It's not a terribly relevant bit of information, but it is interesting in a non-trivia sort of way. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

"U-20 was accidentally rammed by the Austro-Hungarian Navy light cruiser Admiral Spaun, which required seven months of repairs." Which ship required the repairs? Normally subs are damaged more than bigger ships, but this makes it seem like it was the cruiser.
- It was the submarine that required the repairs, so I've reworded to make that clear. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The still-incomplete boat sank in the harbor at Fiume in June 1917," Can you explain how? I'm assuming sources don't say?
- You guessed right: no further details. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two minor little issues. – Joe N utter 02:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the helpful comments. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:57, 15 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.