Wikipedia:Peer review/German Type UB I submarine/archive1

German Type UB I submarine

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to bring this good article to FA status eventually. User:Bellhalla, the majority contributor to this article, left Wikipedia last year. As a result it, this article has on one to "look arfter" it. (I am in no way suggesting article ownership) Anything that needs to be fixed in order to get this to FA status would be great.

Thanks, Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

It would be helpful if you also indicated what work you think is needed for this article to reach FA status. My suggestions are:

• The article needs a copyedit to fix some repetition and a little bit of awkward grammar
• There's good coverage of the fates of the subs, but not their achievements (to the extent there were any!)
• The lists of subs could be presented as a table providing information on the key dates in their service history (eg, commissioning, final fate, etc) Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get to work on the table soon. Do you think that I should also include a list of ships sunk or otherwise damaged by the Type UB I subs? Much like the one on German Type UE II submarine? Or perhaps I can include how many ships were sunk by each U-boat in the table that you proposed.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is interesting and generally well-written. I agree with Nick-D that a table would be good, and your idea of including ships sunk is also good. I have some other suggestions as well.

Lead

• "In 1918, four of the surviving German boats were made into coastal minelayers. Of the seventeen boats in German service, two were sold to Austria-Hungary, one was sold to Bulgaria, and nine were lost during the war." - Something's amiss here. If a total of twenty UB Is were built and Austria-Hungary bought five and Bulgaria one, how could seventeen be in German service in 1918? Should the reference to 1918 come later in the paragraph?

Design

• "By 18 August, just two weeks after the German invasion of Belgium, the planning of a series of small, coastal submarines had already begun." - Would it be helpful to add the year here as well?
• "the Germaniawerft boats seem to have had a fewer number of larger vents" - Tighten by deleting "a" and "number of"; i.e., "to have had fewer larger vents"? Or perhaps "to have had fewer large vents"?

Service

• "Another reported problem with the UB Is was the tendency to break trim... " - Should "trim" be briefly explained or linked?
• "when firing from periscope depth the boat could broach after firing" - Should "broach" be explained or linked?
• "Stern" is redlinked in the article. Would stern work?

Constantinople Flotilla

• "she was surrendered at Sevastopol in November 1918" - To whom was she surrendered?

General

• The images need alt text, meant for readers who can't see the images. The first image has alt text, but it would not be of much use to a blind reader who on a machine that reads the text aloud. The other two images have no alt text. WP:ALT has details.

• What makes uboat.net a reliable source? Its editor says here, "Please note: This entire system is written by individuals in their spare time and without any official or commercial support." Does the site meet the guidelines of WP:RS?

• Perhaps the flatcar image would be better if somewhat bigger than thumb. It's hard to see what it is at thumb size.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In oreder, "Lead" I have no clue how that happened. I'll have to check up and see why the numbers are not the same. "Design", I'll get to that right now. "Service" same as Design. "Constantinople Flotilla", I'll have to look that up. I'm sure that it was the French/British as they had troops there to help out the White Russians in the RCW but I'm not 100% sure. "General" I'll have to add that in. uboat.net is a RS. Or at least acording to The Ed17. You'll have to ask him about that.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)