Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Wolfgang Lüth

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted –Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Lüth

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wolfgang_L%C3%BCth/}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wolfgang_L%C3%BCth/}}

The article has improved nicely during peer and GA review. I think it may be A-Class as weel MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References comments - (this version)
- No problems with disambigs or external links.
- References look good MOS-wise.
- ~~Would it be possible to get a location for all of the books? Just use http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/ and put the ISBN after that last slash for each book.~~
  - I'm almost literally walking out the door, but a location is the location of the publisher, like "Annapolis: Naval Institute Press" or the like. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the notes "Die W.." needs to be in italics as it is a book title, not author, YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment THe top external link # Wolfgang Lüth in the German National Library catalogue (German) does not have an access date attached --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find the title of the section "Summary of the career" confusing; it simply lists his "kills". Presumably, one's career is composed of more then that, not to mention it implies his career ended with his last kill, which is not true. This section needs to be renamed.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. One more comment: while this is not obligatory, it would be great if the remaining red links could be at least stubbed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nicely done. One more note: aren't all ships notable entities? Hence, the ships in "Ships attacked" should be ilinked. I'd expect some of them to already have articles on Wikipedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article. I would suggest adding a section header at the point where he was transferred to the training academy, and possibly expanding that section a bit. – Joe N 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good to go. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Concerning the sinking of the French submarine: given our current understanding of submarine warfare it may be a good idea to note whether the sub was submerged or not when sunk. Also, whats with the talk page icon in the upper right hand corner? Is that standard issue or just something that was added to the article? TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Doris was surfaced at the time. I added this to the article. Regarding the Icon, I found this on a number of medal of honor articles and had assumed this to be standard. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support The sub info addition makes me happy, but I am not finding any Medal of Honor pages that have the little icon on the talk page in the upper corner. Can you provide an example for me? I have a hunch that this may have been a drive by addition that someone added that went unnoticed, and if so then we need to deal with it before it becomes a problem. If it is in fact legit, then we need to inform our people so they do not remove it. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Comments~~ Very good article, I peer reviewed earlier and all points raised have been dealt with. I'm just a bit concerned now with the promotions subsection, it's getting like list cruft for me, particularly when we have the list of awards as well. I really think lists of awards should be restricted to the infobox and then mentioned/cited as appropriate in the main body. Similarly I believe the promotions data should integrated into the article and the list removed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Regarding awards: I don't agree. Sources don't always link a particular action to an award, this is especially true for service awards. Nevertheless they were awarded and clustering the Info box with minor awards doesn't look good either. But I am open for discussion. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that's my point really, service awards that one gets simply for being in the war or in a particular campaign, rather than for an individual act of distinguished service or bravery, are not that notable. Of course I've not familiar with the German system, but I and a number of others have had serious discussions on this regarding Commonwealth service/campaign awards and how or if they should be mentioned. As I suggested above, however, it's not the awards section particularly I'd like to see removed but the promotions section - I focussed some attention on the awards section because it was another list but the promotions section is the one I'd really like to see removed and the data integrated into the main article at appropriate spots, if it isn't already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I integrated this into the article itself. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tks for your trouble, mate - I have no probs supporting this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.