Talk:SM U-31 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Specific concerns
- I'm assuming no pictures are available, correct?
- There's a fair use picture of sister boat U-27 at launch which is used in SM U-27 (Austria-Hungary) and the class article already. I'm always hesitant to use a fair use picture too many times, but could add it if you think it all right. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nah, I was more asking. I think a pic of a sister ship is a bit of a reach for fair use here. Sometimes you just can't find pics. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's a fair use picture of sister boat U-27 at launch which is used in SM U-27 (Austria-Hungary) and the class article already. I'm always hesitant to use a fair use picture too many times, but could add it if you think it all right. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Source for the last parts of the third paragraph of "service career"?
- It was the Imperial and Royal Navy Association work. (I had unintentionally omitted the citation.)
- What makes http://uboat.net/wwi/ a reliable source?
- I initially had the same concerns about citing Uboat.net until I did a search for other works that have cited the website. I came up with the following through Google Books, listing only those where I could see an actual citation:
- Atkinson, Rick (2002). An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942–1943 (1st ed.). New York: Henry Holt & Co. ISBN 9780805062885. OCLC 49383747.
- Conley, Tom (2007). Cartographic Cinema. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816643578. OCLC 73501932.
- Lecane, Philip (2005). Torpedoed!: the R.M.S. Leinster Disaster. Penzance, Cornwall: Periscope. ISBN 1904381308. OCLC 74335239.
- Treadwell, Theodore R (2000). Splinter Fleet: The Wooden Subchasers of World War II. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1557508178. OCLC 43706924.
- Whitlock, Flint (2007). The Depths of Courage: American Submariners at War with Japan, 1941-1945 (1st ed.). New York: Berkley Caliber. ISBN 9780425217436. OCLC 77503911.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Wise, James E. (2004). Soldiers Lost at Sea: A Chronicle of Troopship Disasters. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1591149665. OCLC 52182511.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Zuehlke, Mark (2008). Operation Husky: the Canadian Invasion of Sicily, July 10–August 7, 1943. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. ISBN 9781553653240. OCLC 245556470.
- There are probably more that are not visible via "Limited Preview" at Google Books. Most appear to be from major or academic publishers. Some of the books have multiple editions; one has 23 different editions. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I initially had the same concerns about citing Uboat.net until I did a search for other works that have cited the website. I came up with the following through Google Books, listing only those where I could see an actual citation:
- Heh. It'll do for GA. FA, more up in the air. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your retrieved on dates for the web sources are borked. I tried fixing them but they looked worse after my fix... so if you could fix them so they show the day and month as well as the year?
- Fixed. That retrieval date problem is from updates to {{cite web}} (and other templates that use it). MelonBot is making rounds fixing these when they show up (usually after an edit or a purge of a page). — Bellhalla (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)