Talk:U-43 class submarine (Austria-Hungary)/GA1

GA Review

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

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

It is reasonably well written:
Not Yet There are a few errors I saw. I'd fix them myself, but in most of the cases I'm not 100 percent sure how they should be fixed.
1. Background Section: "the had selected the Type UB II design for what became the U-27 class in mid 1915" I don't understand what this is supposed to say.
  Austria-Hungary decided upon and bought plans/licenses to build eight modified UB II boats that are referred to as the A-H U-27 class. I'll try to reword in the article.
  the should have been they in the original sentence, which may have added to the confusion. I have reworded to hopefully be more clear. — Bellhalla (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Germany had inquired to find out if Austria-Hungary were interested in purchasing existing German submarines" I don't know the political status of Austira-Hungary at the time, but if Austria-Hungary was one unified nation at the time, this should be "Austira-Hungary was" if it was some kind of alliance, it is correct.
  Yes, in general Austria-Hungary was a singular political entity (though each had an independent government), but the verb is in the subjunctive case in the if clause. It is grammatically correct, just as one would correctly say "If I were king…" instead of "If I was king…"
3. Several links are used multiple times (UB I Boats, Austro-Hungarian Navy, etc.) there should only be one link to another page on this article, which should be the first time that it is mentioned, per WP:MOSLINKS.
  That page also says that multiple links for important items may be appropriate, but I'll take a look…
  I try to link important terms in the body of the article even if they've been linked in the lead. Apart from this pattern, there were two links to UB I that were in consecutive paragraphs, so I eliminated the second link. (I also like to provide links for context in discursive notes in case a reader does not look at them immediately. Both the A-H Navy and the UBi links are repeated in one of these notes. — Bellhalla (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. The "design" section features some jargain that may not be clear to potential readers (ie- Driveshafts, twin shafts, saddle tanks) some of these have links but some do not. A reader who doesn't know very much about Submarines or mechanical things overall would have trouble understanding some of the more complex terms. I would recommend explaining some of them at least a little in the article so the reader can keep reading without having to detour to links to find out what they are reading about.
  Will see what I can do.
  I've expanded shaft to be propeller shaft and linked to propeller shaft (ship) (and reworded to avoid drivetrain). I explained that saddle tanks are an early form of ballast tank. Are there any others that need further explanation or a link? — Bellhalla (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. U-43 and U-47 should have links somewhere before or in their subsections.
  I've got hidden {{Main}} links in the respective sections. I had hoped to have the separate articles on U-43 and U-47 completed by now, but I will add links.
  I've linked them in the lead. When the individual boat articles are written, there will be the additional link mentioned in my comment above. — Bellhalla (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. The text doesn't make it clear how exactly the U-43 class is different from the UB-II design. Were the U-43 specifications modified from the U-II design in some way? Were they exactly the same? The prose doesn't make it clear.
  The U-43 class = Type UB II with the following caveats:
  - The German UB II boats were built by a variety of builders in lots of six. In most cases the groups of six—in effect subclasses, though never called that in sources—had slightly different specs.
  - The U-43 boats were two submarines out of one of the groups of six.
  - The "The UB II design" section of this article is attempting to show the evolution of the UB II design from the UB I design.
  - The "The U-43-class design" section is trying to present the specs for these specific two submarines (but which also apply to the other four subs that weren't sold to A-H).
  Can you recommend a way of presenting the information to convey these ideas?
  I've reworked the "The UB II design" and "The U-43-class design" sections to hopefully explain better the relationship between UB II and U-43 and the specs given. I've also added a paragraph that explains the relationship to the U-27 class. Please tell me if this still needs some work. — Bellhalla (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is much clearer to me now, and shouldn't be a problem for the reader. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 04:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass no problems there.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass The coverage is appropriate for the subject.
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 only has an infobox, but that's good enough for a GA.
Overall:
On Hold while a few kinks are worked out of the prose. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 01:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to some of your specific comments above. I'll do what I can to address your concerns and will post a note here when I have done so. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the Christmas holidays, I currently have reduced ability to access Wikipedia and have not had the time to sufficiently address concerns raised in this GA nomination. I am hopeful that this can be kept open until 31 December to allow extra time. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns. After you review the changes, please let me know if there's anything further that needs to be addressed. — Bellhalla (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I should have left a note that I wouldn't be avaliable either. The article looks good now, I think all the issues I noticed before have been properly addressed. GA is passed. Congrats! -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 04:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]