Talk:U-50 class submarine/GA1

GA Review

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

1. Is it Well-written?

(a) Prose is clear, spelling and grammar correct.

(b) Complies with MoS guidelines.

Section Pass/Fail

Pass.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

(a) It provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout.

(b) At minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons.

(c) It contains no original research.

Section Pass/Fail

Pass.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

(a) It addresses the main aspects of the topic.

Only covers design and construction. Probably should include, at minimum, why the submarines weren't completed. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the section "Construction" gives reasons why construction on the boats was slow, and, consequently, not finished by the end of the war. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Shortages of skilled shipyard workers as well as material slowed construction of the boats."? That simply states that construction was slowed. Perhaps another sentence or two of elaboration would be nice here. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to read as follows:

Shortages of skilled shipyard workers and materials slowed construction of the boats, and as a result, neither of the first two boats was ever launched, much less completed. The second pair was cancelled before either was laid down. U-50 was 90% complete at war's end, while U-51 was only 60% complete. Both boats had been scrapped in place in 1920.

I hope that wording will meet with your satisfaction. Anything more I could write would not be based on sources and would be in the realm of original research. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(b) It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

There are two paragraphs of different specs. Not that that's a bad thing, but currently, a third of the article is devoted to specs that most people would probably be bored by. In a larger article, it could work, but not here. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It was a submarine class that had four planned boats, of which only two were begun and neither of those completed. There is no service history. The only other thing that happened (other than the design and construction) is that they were scrapped (which is already noted in the article).

Being an uncompleted class for a no-longer-extant navy (or country, for that matter), there is not a lot of coverage for this subject. This article will never meet the featured article standard of coverage for that reason, but given that all English-language sources found that cover this subject have been exhausted, I believe all that is covered in this article as a broad as it can ever get. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand, however, the two paragraphs going into depth on the article's specs seems a bit too in depth for an article. I understand, however, where you are coming from. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I really doubt that you can get any more in-depth. A ship class from 1916 that had no boats finished...in a country that fell apart shortly thereafter (meaning that records etc. get lost, misplaced etc.)?

Also, being that this is a topic that not many will be looking at just for a glance/casual reading (I mean, how many English readers just decide that they want to randomly read about a class of non-Entente WWI subs that were never completed? (no offense, Bellhalla), people who are coming here will probably be hunting for this class and want/be interested in the specs. Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 06:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, Allanon. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a valid point, switching to passed. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Section Pass/Fail

Neutral.

Per concerns above. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

(a) It represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Section Pass/Fail

Pass.

5. Is it stable?

(a) It does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Section Pass/Fail

Pass.

6. Is it illustrated?

(a) It has images.

There are no illustrations. Is it possible to get one somewhere? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in that there are no illustrations. I have not been able to find any images—free or fair use—for either of the two boats begun. Please note that criterion 6 of WP:WIAGA says "Illustrated, if possible, by images" (emphasis added). — Bellhalla (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I only take this section into account if it's a close call between passing or failing. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

(Other criteria are irrelevant here)

Section Pass/Fail

Fail.

Per above issue. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Overall Pass/Fail

Pass.

Putting on hold due to article not being broad in its coverage and not being illustrated. Seven days for nom to address said issues. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have interspersed responses to your individual iteams above. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to the Christmas holidays, I currently have reduced ability to access Wikipedia and have not had the time to sufficiently address concerns raised in this GA nomination. I am hopeful that this can be kept open until 31 December to allow extra time. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, my user name isn't Scrooge after all! Merry Christmas!!! ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Passed. It would be nice if there were images, but I can see the difficulty of doing that. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)