Talk:German submarine U-301/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a look. —Ed!^(talk) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

It is reasonably well written:
- No problem with dab links, dup links or external links. As in the other article, copyvio tool returns yellow here. Unless there's some significant different between this one and U-335, I would think you can rewrite the design section and just place it in both articles and note any substantial difference.
Rewritten, only a 4.8% match now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Source Spotcheck Refs 2, 3 and 4 all back up info cited in the article.
It is broad in its coverage:
Not Yet
- Ref 1 is returning a Harv error
Fixed by someone else. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As in the other article, infobox mentions mines but not in the prose. And crew complement needs to be added to the infobox.
Added. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Wolfpacks" section can be merged into 1st Patrol, since they essentially contain the same material. What is a wolf pack and what did they do during these missions? These details can expand this section as well.
Done, merged. There's a link to Wolfpack (naval tactic), which I feel is sufficient. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Were any ships sighted on the patrols? Any unsuccessful targets that could be mentioned?
Unfortunately, I don't have access to much info about unsuccesful sightings, but I've added what I could in the first patrol. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This book, also mentioned in the other review, has a few mentions of U-301 and might be good addition for U-boat strategy at the time to explain how she was employed as well as a few extra details on the loss: [1]
Added some content from the book. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the wreck ever located?
Very probably not, it would be mentioned at u-boat.net. But I've done a search and haven't found anything. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass Image tagged PD where appropriate.
Other:
On Hold Pending a few suggestions for expansion. —Ed!^(talk) 17:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed!: see if my changes are satisfactory. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holding pending the outcome of this discussion about use of uboat.net. —Ed!^(talk) 15:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed!: what do you think now? The result of the discussion as I see it is that uboat.net shouldn't be used as only source, and I've added as many book sources as I find. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@L293D: This is sufficient, IMO. If someone has a challenge about a specific point or fact in the article cited to uboat.net, they can bring it up on the talk page, with these new sources I feel you've largely double-refed anything major. Last request; if you could standardize the footnotes in {{sfn}} and {{cite web}} templates as appropriate, currently they're in a mix of formats. —Ed!^(talk) 20:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry for the delay. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pass With all this said and done, I think the article passes GA now. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 01:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]