Jump to content

Talk:Type IXA submarine/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I'm putting this review on hold until a consensus is reached about whether this topic is better covered by a list or an article. I do this to prevent it from getting a GA rating if it's decided that it should be a list (lists only get A-class and FL status). If it's decided that it should remain an article, I will release this and let somebody else review it as you probably think that I'm biased.[reply]

You can review it if you'd like and I am happy to wait. I doubt that you are biased as you do make good points in your favor ad we have co-operated in the past. However, the decision is up to you.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best as an article since it is about German Type IXA submarines. This entire article is not a list since it has a good amount of prose. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 18:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly I'd be happier if separate articles were done on the subsequent sub-classes as this is the first and baseline model, which is best covered in the class article, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might get a-working on that. Buggie111 (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

There's lots of missing data here that I consider essential to a class article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Fix the awkward wording about the armament. Magazine of 100-odd shells implies something like a rifle magazine.
    Fixed the wording.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now you've got a couple of really short paragraphs on each u-boat. Combine them so they aren't so choppy and flow better. The repeated use of "All Type IXA" subs is not good and needs to be fixed. And the bit about the 105mm gun and its ammunition is still awkward.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you want me to combine them?--White Shadows you're breaking up 18:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the odd sentence and removed a lot of the "All Type IXA" metionings save one or two instances. That leaves the short paraghraphs which I have no clue how to address.--White Shadows you're breaking up 19:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then get somebody from the Guild of Copyeditors to help with the prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've requested it now. Give it a few days and someone will come over and copy-edit it.--White Shadows stood on the edge 10:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone over the article twice and will give one more run-through tomorrow. I will make the section for each boat into one paragraph. There is no way to make the paragraphs longer without adding more content. How it presents visually will depend on what type of monitor the article is viewed with. Diannaa TALK 04:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the interesting read. Diannaa TALK 02:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    The link to ref 1 is broken.
    Repaired the broken link. Should work now.--White Shadows you're breaking up 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    What was the diving time? What kind of hull did they have? How much fuel was stored aboard? What were the specifications for her weapons, guns and torpedoes both? How were the reloads carried and how were they reloaded? Talk more about the AA refits given to the surviving operational boats. Diving depth is kinda important. What kind of sea-keeping qualities did they have?
    I've got the hulls down as well as the specifications for her weapons, guns and torpedoes (I think). As for the AA guns and the diveing depth, I'll try to get to that soon.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also added in the diveing depth. However it may take a while for me to find the amount of fuel as well as the diveing time.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll wait until you get the necessary data. Please add armament to the infobox. Your article on U-43 already mentions that it got a 37mm gun. Did the other two survivors get one as well?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If I remember correctly (I remember reading about this a few days ago on Uboat.net) many U-boats such as U-37 and U-38 did get an upgrade to the 37mm gun for their AA armament. I'll add in the info into the infobox now.--White Shadows stood on the edge 01:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you already knew it, why didn't you add it earlier as I'd specifically requested it? I don't believe in cutting corners on this stuff, if you're so focused on GAs, etc. that you're willing to do so then go find some other project to work on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not cutting corners or anything so you can stop talking garbage to me. I totaly forgot about the info that I added into U-43 when I made this article and when I did "re-find" it, I was going to add it in but RL called me away from the computer which I spend ever increaseing more amounts of time on. Now that I've added it into the infobox can you please stop makeing comments like the one above and we can just move on with the reivew? Thanks.--White Shadows stood on the edge 10:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so we're still waiting on reload arrangements, mine stowage, fuel capacity and weapon specifications. See if you can get a copy of Whitley's Submarines of World War Two. And check Navweaps.com for weapons specs. It's perfectly reliable unless you plan to go to FAC with this. Take a look at any of the OMT FA class articles for the kind of info I'm looking for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get your hopes up for the mines as the Type IXB subs were never equipped with any. I found the fuel capacity somewhere on the internet once and I'll try to find it again. What do you mean for the weapon specs and the reloads? What are you expecting me to put in for them?--White Shadows stood on the edge 10:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Range, muzzle velocity, shell weight, rate of fire for guns. Range/speed, warhead weight for torpedoes (don't worry about the ones used after the last operational sub was sunk). Just like you see in the FA ship class articles. Was there anything special about the stowage arrangements for the torpedoes? The Type IXA couldn't carry mines? Not even in its torpedo tubes? And lemme remind you to find a copy of Whitley's book; it might have some of the missing info.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten the range. As for the other info, I cannot find anything about it on Google books. I've found about 4-5 books and they don't mention ony of the requested info. Only that which I've already added! I can keep trying but I'm not going to the library soon and since school's almost out, I'll be heading to Florida soon and will not be available for a few weeks. Can you ask someone on WP:SHIPS if they have the book? Thank you so much :)--White Shadows stood on the edge 21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done I belive. Tell me if I'm missing any info that you'd like me to add in and I'll try to find it.--White Shadows stood on the edge 20:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the Type IXAs could'nt carry mines it's that they were not designed to. I'll see what I can do for the rest of the missing info.--White Shadows stood on the edge 21:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've confused total weight of the torpedo and the warhead weight. The G7a had several speed settings that gave a range in excess of 6 km. 44 knots does not equal 0.023 km; check your units. Need range, etc. for the 20 and 37 mm guns. Break out the armament details into a separate paragraph. Navies typically estimated distance in yards or meters, never feet. Still need data on reload arrangements and fuel capacity. Watch out for run-on sentences.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should only be missing the range ect for the 20 and 37 guns, the fuel cap. and the reload stuff. I can easily find the info for the 20 and 37's but I doubt that I can find any info on the other items. any more suggestions as to where I can find this? It's in none of the books on google books nor can I find it in my own library....--White Shadows stood on the edge 01:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naveaps.com should have the weapon ranges. The other stuff should be in Whitley's book; it's the best English-language source that I've seen for the early U-boat classes. All I can suggest is to try Inter-Library Loan or to buy it online.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gotten the remaining info aboutth e range(s) from Naveaps and I've also found the fuel capacity from Uboataces. That leaves me the reload info.... Can you be a bit more specific as to what that means so I know exactly what I'm looking for? Thnanks :)--White Shadows stood on the edge 18:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a vague memory that the reloads were stored externally. Is this correct and, if so, how then did they reload them while at sea? Did they have to surface, etc.?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, you are correct. There was hardly any remaining room in the subs with 40-50+ people....but I do not know how to incorperate that into the text.--White Shadows stood on the edge 20:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Still need more details of light AA weapons. Nothing is present for 37-mm and only range for 20-mm. Watchout for spelling mistakes and run-on sentences.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added in the range and rate of fire for both AA guns as well as cited them to Naveaps.--White Shadows There goes another day 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Still need muzzle velocity and shell weight for the guns as well as the torpedo reload information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got all of the info for the AA (includeing MV now) but I am still lacking the torpedo reloads which I honestly cannot find anywhere.--White Shadows There goes another day 20:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey do you think this may bo of use when finding the reload info? (Just search reload)--White Shadows There goes another day 16:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That certainly needs to be added, but it doesn't quite answer the question about use of the reloads by the boat itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    well that was my last hope for finding that info. I've checked GB, googled the phrase "How were the torpedoes reloaded on a German Type IXA submarine" and that came up but the rest was useless. I've run out of options and places to look.....--White Shadows There goes another day 17:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read through this thread [1] and add the appropriate details. Watch your prose and typos. You may well need to tidy things up after incorporating all this info. I'll be sure to let you know if that's necessary, but do everybody a favor and deal with that sort of thing ahead of time. Don't be in such a hurry that you neglect editing yourself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Strumvogel. I'll add it in now and ask for someone to go over the prose of the armament section one more time.--White Shadows There goes another day 18:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've added in where the torpedoes were located and how they were put into place while docked as well as how they were reloaded from the external compartments at sea.--White Shadows There goes another day 18:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've added a bunch of typos that need to be corrected. The overall weight of the torpedo is less important than the warhead weight. Clarify what you mean by on the deckplates. On or under? Separate the gun info into a new paragraph. Change the overall weight of the shell to just the projectile's weight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing of the gun performance needs to be worked on. At the moment it reads disjointedly. Try putting the elements together in a linked way eg " fired a xx kg shell at yyy m/s; maximum range was zzzz metres" But check for the Flak guns if range or effective ceiling differ significantly - guns firing upwards have shorter ranges. A description of the location of the guns would be useful. (deck gun is a link you can use.)GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edited and split in two paragraphs now.--White Shadows There goes another day 21:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fix this: Two were on the deck plates in the bow compartment and three were on the deck plates in the stern compartment. Link to the article on the 3.7 cm gun. Still need to change from torpedo and whole round weights to warhead and individual projectile weights for the 105 mm gun. Move the crew sentence to the general characteristics section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed.--White Shadows There goes another day 21:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. Still have complete torpedo weights, not their warhead weights, and much the same for the 105mm shell. You're quoting the complete weight of the entire shell; I only want the actual projectile weight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I understand now. Now they are all fixed.--White Shadows There goes another day 03:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got one clarification note that needs to be dealt with. Double-check the total and locations of torpedoes carried and I'll accept the current cite if you add the one from upthread from the prisoner interrogation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll double check the number and the location but I'm not sure how to fix the clarification needed tag. I don't know of any re-wording that I could use....--White Shadows I ran away from you 01:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Validate the number of torpedoes, etc and add the cite from your 16:26 post from 1 July. That's it. And you've got the complete shell weight for the 37mm gun, not the projectile weight which is 1.64 lbs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still need to validate the number of torpedoes, your data adds up to 23, and add the additional cite mentioned earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done you a favor of moving the interrogation report from the end of the gun paragraph to the torpedo paragraph, but you still need to tell me how many torpedoes they carried and where they were. The infobox says 22, but the main body tally totals 23. I don't know what the problem is here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I... I'm not sure why the numbers do not add up but is there a chance that there could have been an extra torpedo to be used as a "spare" in a sense?
Not considering how bulky torpedos were. I've deleted the detailed storage data as it's contradictory and just gone with a summary of 12 internal and 8 external.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. B. Focused:
    Be consistent about listing the Unterseebootsflottile, either list them for all subs or none. Don't worry about red-links if nobody's started an article on them. Same for captains. A comprehensive list is not appropriate here, but list either one captain per sub or none.
    I've listed all of the original captains as well as the flotilla(s) for each U-boat.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  3. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Add another picture or two.
    I've added in the only images of a Type IXA submarine on commons now.--White Shadows you're breaking up 20:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • Thanks for starting this review Strum :) I'll get to these issues when I get home (but I'll likely only be able to finish them this weekend)--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously I'm in no hurry so whenever you get them done is fine by me. I'm a little concerned that this is totally sourced from the Internet. I have no issues with either of your main websites, but books usually have more details. Oh, and don't forget about mines. How many of what type and how were they laid, through the torpedo tubes, or whatever?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sturmvogel 66 failed to point out a few typos in the prose. I have fixed them. The next time you review an article, you might want to scan for typos. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - also be careful making the additions recommended, several typos introduced during the recent additions. Its not a race. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing needs attention - specifically the citations for Navweapons.com. Importanly the author does not match that of the page in question - its of one of the works cited for the creation of the webpage. On a lesser note, there is also no publishing date, for the page in the citation, and the choice of the parameter |work= as "German" is not constructive. I attended to a couple but the others need checking. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Type_IXA_submarine/GA1&oldid=1232177018"