Talk:German submarine U-301/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving a look. —Ed!^(talk) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written:

   • No problem with dab links, dup links or external links. As in the other article, copyvio tool returns yellow here. Unless there's some significant different between this one and U-335, I would think you can rewrite the design section and just place it in both articles and note any substantial difference.

   • Rewritten, only a 4.8% match now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Source Spotcheck Refs 2, 3 and 4 all back up info cited in the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • Ref 1 is returning a Harv error

   • Fixed by someone else. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

   • As in the other article, infobox mentions mines but not in the prose. And crew complement needs to be added to the infobox.

   • Added. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

   • The "Wolfpacks" section can be merged into 1st Patrol, since they essentially contain the same material. What is a wolf pack and what did they do during these missions? These details can expand this section as well.

   • Done, merged. There's a link to Wolfpack (naval tactic), which I feel is sufficient. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

   • Were any ships sighted on the patrols? Any unsuccessful targets that could be mentioned?

   • Unfortunately, I don't have access to much info about unsuccesful sightings, but I've added what I could in the first patrol. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

   • This book, also mentioned in the other review, has a few mentions of U-301 and might be good addition for U-boat strategy at the time to explain how she was employed as well as a few extra details on the loss: [1]

   • Added some content from the book. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

   • Was the wreck ever located?

   • Very probably not, it would be mentioned at u-boat.net. But I've done a search and haven't found anything. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass No problems there.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Image tagged PD where appropriate.

7. Other:

   On Hold Pending a few suggestions for expansion. —Ed!^(talk) 17:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

   • @Ed!: see if my changes are satisfactory. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

   • Holding pending the outcome of this discussion about use of uboat.net. —Ed!^(talk) 15:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

   • @Ed!: what do you think now? The result of the discussion as I see it is that uboat.net shouldn't be used as only source, and I've added as many book sources as I find. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

   • @L293D: This is sufficient, IMO. If someone has a challenge about a specific point or fact in the article cited to uboat.net, they can bring it up on the talk page, with these new sources I feel you've largely double-refed anything major. Last request; if you could standardize the footnotes in {{sfn}} and {{cite web}} templates as appropriate, currently they're in a mix of formats. —Ed!^(talk) 20:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

   • Done, sorry for the delay. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Pass With all this said and done, I think the article passes GA now. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 01:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)