Talk:German submarine U-105 (1940)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Benea (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The lead and Construction and design sections read fairly well. But the division of the service history section into separate headings for each patrol really interrupts the flow the prose, and is unnecessary when most of these sections are only two or three sentences long. Amalgamate most of these into larger paragraphs. Look at German submarine U-101 (1940) for an example of better structure. You use the same sentence structure repeatedly, try to vary that. At the moment it is just 'left point x, roamed for x days, sunk this or that, or not at all, returned on x.' The use of the word 'roamed' is strange here. How about 'spent 50 days in the Atlantic', 'underwent a 50-day cruise', and other variations. You have 'On 5 May 1941, the 105mm deck gun exploded, wounding 6 crew members. U-105 returned to Lorient on 13 June 1941. This was the second most successful U-boat patrol of the entire Second World War.' Which reads very oddly, try putting the successful sentence after you discuss the successes in sinking ships, rather than the explosion of a deck gun! And successful in what way, the number of ships sunk? The tonnage? The cites should also be in numerical order, in some cases you have cite 9 followed by cite 2 for example.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   No major outstanding problems here that I can see at first glance. Make sure you have consistent formatting throughout (HMS Culver) for instance. Potez-CAMS 141 has an article, which should be linked in the main body of the text as well as the infobox.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   While you don't need cites in the lead, it should be that the information is included and cited in the main body, hence the total number and tonnage of vessels sunk should be cited. Otherwise the referencing is fairly comprehensive.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   I'm more than a little concerned about the nearly total reliance on a single source, Uboat.net. As has already been noted on this page, there is still uncertainty over whether it constitutes a reliable source. While I think an article can be written using it, it is questionable whether it can be considered a Good Article, without other, and indisputably reliable, sources being consulted. While I would be willing to pass an article that used uboat.net alongside other sources, I am unwilling to pass one that relies on it more or less completely.

   C. No original research:

   The information follows the sources fairly thoroughly, without deviating into OR.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The details of the submarine and its service are covered, but I would like to see more context on the role of the submarines in the Battle of the Atlantic. Details on her sinking are very brief and basic. I suspect there is more out there, but with the current reliance only on what uboat.net has, there is no way to know. Did she attack convoys? Did she operate in wolfpacks?

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   The recent disagreement over the 'self-published source' tag is somewhat concerning here, can we have some agreement that this is settled first?

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   I understand the difficulties of finding images of these U-boats or related events, and I don't consider the absence of images a failing criteria. There are pictures of aircraft attacking U-boats on wikipedia, which might be a useful addition though.

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

   As above

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Given what I can see will be a large amount of work to address the basic structure issue, not to mention the sourcing, the article will change quite substantially, if it is to be GA worthy. The best approach would be a quick fail for now, giving you plenty of time to work on the issues. Good luck improving it further!