Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Wolfgang Lüth

Wolfgang Lüth

I seek feedback on the article with focus on the layout of the article, especially on the table of ships sunk. I am personally opposed to the idea of integrating this information into the top part of the article. I feel this may lead to multiple paragraphs repeating information on what ship was sunk when and where. I would find than an annoying read. Nevertheless I think this is valuable information that should be included in the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney

I did a quick check every thing looks good = the table looks fine as it is --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool3

I've looked it over, and I agree that what ship was sunk where and when belongs in a separate table. I somewhat question calling that section "Achievements" though, as it just seems like an odd term to me. I might also rearrange the table itself, perhaps putting the name of the ship in the first column rather than the date (though keeping the table in chronological order). Personally, I also think that a word like "result" might be better than "fate" for the last column, but again that's more of a personal preference. Finally, I think the awards might be better converted into prose. Cool3 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose

Good article, I think the structure works pretty well. Apart from my usual little copyedit, I have the following points:

"After his parents had approved his wish he joined the Reichsmarine^[b] on 1 April 1933." sounds a little clumsy. Can it be reworded (whilst maintaining accuracy) to something like "He expressed a desire to join the Reichsmarine;^[b] his parents approved his wish and he enlisted on 1 April 1933."?
- I see the GA review also picked up on this and suggested "With his parents approval he joined the Reichsmarine" - that'd be fine by me as well... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand this sentence: "In October, after having returned from his second patrol, on which he torpedoed the Norwegian merchant steamer Dagrun (4,562 GRT) that he missed, sank the British merchant steamer Bonheur (5,327 GRT) and damaged the British motor tanker British Glory (6,993 GRT)." How did he torpedo something that he missed? Or did he fire a torpedo and miss? (Generally if you torpedo a ship it means you hit it with the torpedo).
- Looks like this was dealt with in the parallel GA review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...perhaps in order to commit suicide..."? Even if this bare suggestion is supported by citation, I think it needs to be explained a bit - why would he have been a candidate for suicide?
- Looks like this has been removed now so that resolves it for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]