Talk:SM UB-2/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- What makes uboat.net reliable?
- I initially had the same concerns about citing Uboat.net until I did a search for other works that have cited the website. I came up with the following through Google Books, listing only those where I could see an actual citation:
- Atkinson, Rick (2002). An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942–1943 (1st ed.). New York: Henry Holt & Co. ISBN 9780805062885. OCLC 49383747.
- Conley, Tom (2007). Cartographic Cinema. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816643578. OCLC 73501932.
- Lecane, Philip (2005). Torpedoed!: the R.M.S. Leinster Disaster. Penzance, Cornwall: Periscope. ISBN 1904381308. OCLC 74335239.
- Treadwell, Theodore R (2000). Splinter Fleet: The Wooden Subchasers of World War II. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1557508178. OCLC 43706924.
- Whitlock, Flint (2007). The Depths of Courage: American Submariners at War with Japan, 1941-1945 (1st ed ed.). New York: Berkley Caliber. ISBN 9780425217436. OCLC 77503911.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Wise, James E. (2004). Soldiers Lost at Sea: A Chronicle of Troopship Disasters. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1591149665. OCLC 52182511.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - Zuehlke, Mark (2008). Operation Husky: the Canadian Invasion of Sicily, July 10–August 7, 1943. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre. ISBN 9781553653240. OCLC 245556470.
- There are probably more that are not visible via "Limited Preview" at Google Books. All appear to be major publishers, including one that's from an academic press. Some of the books have multiple editions; one has 23 different editions. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- I initially had the same concerns about citing Uboat.net until I did a search for other works that have cited the website. I came up with the following through Google Books, listing only those where I could see an actual citation:
- What makes uboat.net reliable?
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- On hold. Well written, but with uboat.net being the dominant source of information, reliability must be established before the article reaches GA standards. Arsenikk (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I've replied above to your note about sourcing. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting. Though there are no rules for this type of situation, I will except uboat.net as reliable, and thereby pass the article. Congratulation! Arsenikk (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- On hold. Well written, but with uboat.net being the dominant source of information, reliability must be established before the article reaches GA standards. Arsenikk (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
