Talk:German submarine U-43 (1939)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:German submarine U-43 (1939)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none

Linkrot: none

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The submarine was laid down on 15 August 1938 Durely, the "keel was laid down"?  Done

   Fixed.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

   Enough for it to be declared a total loss. consolidate into previous sentence, this doesn't work as a solitary sentence.  Done

   Fixed.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

   She was laided down on 15 august 1938 by AG Weser "laided"?  Done

   Done.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

   She also carried a total of 22 533 mm (21 in) torpedoes What was thetotal number of torpedoes?  Done

   I misunderstood, the total is 22!

   She was likely equipped with the one 37 mm (1 in) and one 20 mm (1 in) anti-aircraft guns. Speculation  Done

   Sorry about that. It turns out that it was indeed a 37 MM and a 20 MM. I only added in the word "likely" because I was in a hurry to finish an edit of mine and I did not have enough time to find a source. I'll fix that.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

   Removed "likely".--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

   They both can't be one-inch guns if they are differenct mm; am I missing something? I have changed this. If there is something about guns I don't know, please inform me. Diannaa ^TALK 16:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well the GA has been passed but to answer your question, you are correct about the sizes. That was my bad and I should have known that they are not the same size if the numbers were diffrent ;)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 17:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

1. The crew abandoned ship, which foundered the next day. Better: "The crew abandoned the ship, which foundered the next day." Done

   Fixed.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

   Some rather poor prose throughout, this could do with a thorough copy-edit Obvious stuff  Done #::Now "reasonably well written, but the prose could be improved. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Copy edits  Done. Congrats on another GA! Diannaa ^TALK 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   5th patrol: un-addressed citation needed tag.  Done

   What makes uboat.net a reliable source - the editor Gudmundur Helgason has a business administration degree and works for an insurance company. No sources are cited for the information. This clearly fails WP:RS. As there are no other sources cited, this article fails GA nomination as not referenced.

   OK, I am persuaded by User:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability that Uboat.net is cited by other RS to be considered RS. I would really like to see one or two other sources used in this article however. At the momment it is just the one source which is not very good. Can you dig up any of the sources that uboat.net uses for example?

   Sure. I can find more sources if you want them.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 00:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

   I've begun to add in more citations. I'm still looking for more though so I'm not quite done with that yet.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

   OK, I will take that on good faith, certainly necessary for FAC. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   Can you trim the ugly black linew from the bottom of the picture?

   This came up on another GA for a Type IXA submarine. While I can remove it, I'd be messing up the caption that is part of the image. It came from the German Federal Archives and for some reason, we tend not to modify the images from them.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   An interesting article, but sourced entirely from an amateur hobby-site, so does not meet the Good Article criteria. There is a wealth of information about the U-boat war which has been published in reliable sources and that should be used for writing articles such as this. Not listed at this time.

   OK, you have demonstrated that this is considered a reliable source, but I would like to see other sources used. I don't think a Good Article can rely on just one source. There are also other issues that have been raised above. On hold for seven days.

   OK, I think enough has been done. I am happy to list this as a Good Article. I have uploaded a cropped image at File:U37 Lorient 1940.jpg which you may wish to use. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you. I'll add the image in now ;)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 02:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Ammunition

This extract appears in the 'Construction' section: "...and had a 105 mm/45 deck gun and 110 rounds."
but this is in the '1st patrol' section, para 3: "After firing 149 rounds..."
Clearly, there is something wrong here. Either the gunners, in the '1st patrol' section, replenished their ammunition supply in mid-actiion and mid-ocean; or, as seems more likely, one of these figures is wrong.
My money is on the latter. But to be sure, which one is the correct figure? RASAM (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)