Talk:German submarine U-30 (1936)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review[edit]

Criteria[edit]

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  • in the lead I suggest adding "that served" between "German Kriegsmarine" and "during World War II" in the first sentence of the lead;
  • in the lead "German Kriegsmarine" is mentioned twice in quick succession, you can probably get away with dropping the second mention and just saying: "U-30 was ordered by the German Kriegsmarine on 1 April 1935 in violation..."
  • In the first two sentences of the lead you have this: "...the German Kriegsmarine that served during World War II. U-30 was ordered by the German Kriegsmarine on..." German Kriegsmarine is mentioned twice very close together which seems a little repetitive to me. What I am proposing is that you could change to this: "the German Kriegsmarine that served during World War II. U-30 was ordered on..." (as such removing the second mention of the German Kriegsmarine which I think is redundant as it has already been mentioned). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the First patrol section, the second paragraph is quite large, and could probably be broken up;
  • in the First patrol section, some of the wording is a bit awkward, for example here: "Not every submarine had returned to port nor did they report that no enemy ships had been targeted or sunk since all U-boats maintained radio silence while at sea. Once U-30 did arrive..." (the issue, I think is the use of the words "had" and "did" , as it seems to create a tense issue);
  • in the First patrol section, there's probably no need to mention Raeder's rank a second time (particularly as you use Grand Admiral to start off with and then Admiral). After first mention, I'd suggest just saying "Raeder";
  • in the First patrol section, I suggest wikilinking "Nuremberg trials" and adding a date beside it to provide some context;
  • in the First patrol section "200 miles" should have a convert template added to it;
  • in the First patrol section, it doesn't mention the other two vessels that U-30 sunk during its first patrol;
  • in the Second patrol section, I think you need to provide some sort of context for the opening sentence. Currently it begins: "U-30 was finally able to go to sea again on 9 December 1939." However, this appears to be missing something. The sentence indicates that there was a delay, or something keeping the U-boat in port but doesn't say what or for how long (leaving the reader to do the maths from the last section to work out how long they remained in port). I think you need to be a bit more specific;
  • I've tweaked the wording of this for you. Please check that you agree with this change. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Third patrol section, what type of ship was the HMS Barbara Robertson;
  • I've added in that it was an anti-submarine trawler. Please check that you agree with this edit. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Fifth patrol section, there is a tense issue. This clause: "...which was now under invasion by Germany", should probably be "...which was then under invasion...";
  • in the Fifth patrol section, can you please provide some more context as to what "Operation Weserubung" was, as currently the reader is left to assume that it relates to the Norwegian invasion;
  • I've reworded the section to clarify this point. Can you please check that you agree with my change? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Sixth patrol section, I think you need to provide a linking clause here: "...headed to port. However, with the Fall of France...". Something along these lines: "...headed to port. Instead of returning to Wilhelmshaven, however, U-30 put in to Lorient, in France, which had been captured after the Fall of France. In doing so, it became the first German U-boat to enter the port."
  • in the Construction section, you mention that the boat was built in violation of a treaty, but don't really explain this, perhaps a Footnote could be added briefly explaining this point?
  • in the Later patrols section, can you please clarify what a "range boat" is?
  • I think that it means that the U-boat was used to supply other U-boats at sea but she herself did not attack any enemy vessels anymore. Google "range boat (U-boat)" and you'll see what I mean.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 01:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Later patrols section can you please elaborate as to why the vessel was scuttled (I assume because the crew didn't wish to surrender the boat to Allies, but this should be stated if it is known);
  • I added in a small clarification clause here so readers don't necessarily have to click through to the link on Operation Regenbogen. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Later patrols section, is it known why U-30 was withdrawn from front-line service?
Not really. This happened to may famous U-boats. Perhaps it was to keep the boat from being sunk and lowering moral of the Kriegsmarine but I honestly do not have a reason.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Later patrols section, there is some overlink - "gross register tons (GRT)" and "HMS Barham" have already been linked in the Service history section;
  • in the Raiding history section why are Athenia and Fanad Head wikilinked, but no other ships have been linked? Athenia was previously linked in the prose above, so you probably don't need to link again;
  • I've moved the link for Fanad Head to the first mention. Please check you agree with this edit. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography section you have different formats for the two book sources (for instance the Bishop source has the year of publication last, but Shirer has it in brackets straight after the surname. These should be consistent;
  • in the Bibligoraphy section the Bishop source is missing an ISBN;
See below.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • per WP:LAYOUT the See also section should be above the References section;
Moved.-White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the infobox the endashes in the Commanders and Operations sections should be spaced per WP:DASH, for instance "23 April 1941–9 March 1942" should be "23 April 1941 – 9 March 1942". However, where you have "13–24 July 1940", that is correct and doesn't need to be changed;
  • I've fixed that. (I think) If there is still a problem can you tell me and help me out because I did not totally understand what you were saying.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 15:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that the Later patrols section should be named as such. It doesn't really talk about any patrols, so I suggest that it might be better if it were named "Fate" as that is what it largely talks about;
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • the direct quotes should be followed by a citation immediately after the quote. For example, this quote: "as a result of which it was definitely established that the Athenia had not been sunk by a German U-boat";
I've added in the sources from Shirer.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that there is any original research in the article (no action required)
  • the work by Bishop is listed in the Bibliography section but doesn't appear to be specifically cited. From its title, however, it seems to me that it would be a fairly relevant work, is there a way that you could work in some references to this source?
  • I would if I could but I cannot get any preview from Google books nor will I be able to get it in time for this GA to finish, I will try to add in my other book though. I hope that this is ok with you.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article seems to be heavily reliant upon Uboat.net as a source. While this is not necessarily a problem as it seems reliable (it quotes its sources), I would like to see a few more different sources if possible. Some citations from Bishop would help, but are there any other paper-based sources (books) out there about U-boat operations during the Second World War that could be consulted?
  • Yes there are. I have a copy of Iron Coffins which is a book about largely the Type VII subs in WWII and it could come in handy.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some citations from this would be great if you could put some in as it would serve to expand the reference base a little. I'd appreciate it if you could add some in but, I won't hold it against the article for GA. A broader ref base would be needed before taking it to ACR, though, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a couple of citations to the works by Blair for you. He goes into quite a bit of detail about the boat in the volume about 1939-42. Please check that you agree with the additions I've made. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • the lead needs to be expanded to summarise the article completely;
  • I've made a slight tweak to the lead for you. Please check that you agree with the edit. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the seventh, eighth and Later patrol sections are quite small, is there anything else that might be discussed to expand these at all? Notable incidents, or descriptions of the attacks?
  • The article is neutral in its point of view (no action required).
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  • The article is not subject to an edit war (no action required).
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
  • The article has no images, therefore there are no licencing issues (no action required).
  • It is not a GA requirement for the article to have images, but if one could be found and added in that would be great (suggestion only).
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • There are a few things that I feel need to be done to bring this article up to GA status, however, I do not feel that these warrant a quick fail as I believe that they are able to be achieved within the required timeframe. As such I will place it on hold to see what changes are made before deciding upon the outcome. I'm prepared to accept any reasonable explainations of my concerns, and any changes will be taken into consideration, of course. Good work so far.
  • Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the {{Done}} tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All comments have been addressed, I'm happy to promote this article now to GA status. Good work and well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I've struck the comments that I feel have been addressed. Can you please take a look at the ones that I haven't struck and see if these can be addressed? If you think you've addressed them can you please write underneath them what you've done. Sorry to do this too you but my offline life has caught up with me and I'm finding my time stretched, so this is a bit of a rush job on my part, I'm afraid. Anyway, good work so far. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working on this article next since my other GAN's that were under review have passed. It may take a few days though :)--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 23:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All comments have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_submarine_U-30_(1936)/GA1&oldid=1136275739"