Talk:SM U-15 (Austria-Hungary)

SM U-15 (Austria-Hungary) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 13, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
March 15, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted
August 17, 2024	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted

Current status: Good article

Military history: Maritime / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	World War I task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips

A summary of this article appears in U-10 class submarine.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SM U-15 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the two very minor problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status just yet (although I honestly can't see myself failing this) and I have also appended a couple of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues preventing promotion

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

A picky thing, but you don't mention Autro-Hungarian Navy until the second section. Could you perhaps include a sentence or two covering the sale of the submarine from Germany to the Autro-Hungarian Navy? I know it's in the lead but it should also be in the main body of the text as well.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed this. I've added that the boat was ordered from the German firm by the Austro-Hungarian Navy, and reordered the paragraphs so that that fact leads off the "Design and contruction" section.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

This also is a bit picky, but the "No Photo Available" banner looks awful, is there any way you can remove it until a suitable photo can be found?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commented out while I look (hoefully, not in vain) for an image.

Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)

Please link or otherwise explain "GRT" in the main body of text as well as the infobox.
- It's spelled out in the lead, and since it's a rather short article, I had originally opted not to spell it out again just a few paragraphs later, but done.

Apparently I am an idiot, because I for some reason it didn't register with me that it was already in the lead. If you want to remove the new link please go ahead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend joining the two very short paragraphs in the lead to form one as it will look neater.
- Done

I hope I have addressed your concerns adequately. My responses to individual items are interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made an already nice short article even better. Pass.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]