Jump to content

Talk:German submarine U-301/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

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


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


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.
  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
    • As in the other article, infobox mentions mines but not in the prose. And crew complement needs to be added to the infobox.
    • 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.
    • Were any ships sighted on the patrols? Any unsuccessful targets that could be mentioned?
    • 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]
    • Was the wreck ever located?
  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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]

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