Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/U-5-class submarine

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U-5 class submarine (Austria-Hungary)

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for the next Austro-Hungarian submarine class, this time the U-5 class. This article has passed a GA review and I think it's ready for A-Class. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Four or Five dismbig links need to be located and if at all possible corrected. No problems reported with external links. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tool link is working from an older cache of the article. I believe that I addressed all of them at the time I added the toolbox to this review page. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It takes the tool about 12-24 hours to update from the article, so I accept that this issue has been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had actually missed one, but there are now no ambiguous links. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'll do more later
- 'Grant (p. 162), Gibson and Prendergast (p. 73), and Halpern (p. 150) and report U-12's loss in August 1915, while Sieche (p. 23) and Gardiner (p. 343) report the loss in August 1916.' - you've got an extra 'and' there that needs adding to or taking away. Skinny87 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I and took and away and the and extra word. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'The design of the boats was based upon John Philip Holland's submarine design and the boats featured a single, teardrop hull, which resembled the design of modern nuclear submarines' - Repetition of 'the boats'
  - Reworded. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'All three boats had successes during World War I; between them sinking five ships with a combined gross register tonnage (GRT) of 22,391' - With the semicolon, changing 'sinking' to 'tbhey sank' sounds better
  - Yes, you're right. Reworded. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'In 1904, after allowing the navies of other countries to pioneer submarine developments, the Austro-Hungarian Navy ordered the Austrian Naval Technical Committee (MTK) to produce a submarine design' - Allow seems a tad odd, as if they were the best and were gracious enough to let it happen, which I'm guessing isn't really the case.
  - Well, that's certainly not the sense aimed for. The sense I get from the source is they didn't want to spend money on development of purely experimental boats and opted not to get involved in that, choosing to wait until the technology was at least a little more mature. Changing the verb to let still implies a permissive aspect that's not supported. What can you suggest? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'The ships were powered by gasoline engines while surfaced, but suffered from inadequate ventilation, which resulted in frequent intoxication of the crew' - How were they powered underwater, then?
  - I added a sentence to clarify that the boats ran on electric motors while submerged. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Reportedly built to run on electric motors both on the surface and submerged, SS-3 was rebuilt with gasoline motors when the surface running on the electric motors proved disappointing' - The latter parts need rewording, it doesn't flow very well, and I'm not sure what it's saying. Skinny87 (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I split into two sentences and, I hope, have reworded to be more clear in the meaning. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. (Specific replies interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources query I believe that the Icelandic editor of the website you use is not an RS. He is an insurance broker trained with business degrees. Some of his staff are engineers. None IMHO are qualified to make WP:SPS in a reliable manner. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
  - ~~Castelaz, Isaac (2008). Paths to Power: The Legacy of an Empire and the Fight to Find America. Abysmal Pub. ISBN 096738253X. OCLC 244067357.~~
  - 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; Ron Smith (2007). The Depths of Courage: American Submariners at War with Japan, 1941-1945 (1st ed.). New York: Berkley Caliber. ISBN 9780425217436. OCLC 77503911.
  - Wise, James E.; Scott Baron (2004). Soldiers Lost at Sea: A Chronicle of Troopship Disasters. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 1591149665. OCLC 52182511.
  - 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. I'm not familiar enough with Abysmal Publications to know if it's a vanity publisher or not, but the others are appear to be major publishers. Some of the books have multiple editions; one has 23 different editions. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Abysmal Publishing does seem to be a vanity press, so I have struck that as an example. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's fine then. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - meets all of our A-class criteria. A few comments:
- In the lead, you say that "damaged a French dreadnought of 22,189 tons displacement." Is this being cryptic on purpose? I mean, I like the link to dreadnought because it's (almost) FA, but...how about "the 22,189 ton French dreadnought Jean Bart"
  - Not trying to be cryptic, per se, but trying to present a summary without getting bogged down into too many details in the lead. I've added in the name. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "After the war's end, U-5, the only surviving example of the class, was ceded to Italy as a war reparation and was broken up in 1920."
  - Would "...the only survivor of her class..." work better?
    - Well, if you want to be clear and concise, it would… ;) Reworded to remove the excess wordiness. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The third boat, built on speculation, was originally named SS-3 and built entirely at Whitehead's in Fiume with improvements in the electrical and mechanical systems."
  - Run-on (or am I crazy?)
    - Maybe not technically a run-on but probably better split into two sentences. (Of course, then you can't pretend it's a Gilbert and Sullivan lyric: ♬♩I am the very model ♪♫ of the third boat built on speculation…♩♬ ) — Bellhalla (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the review and the good suggestions. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I couldn't find any issues with the article. Fine job. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The only issue I found was images. It would be nice to have one with the class description, perhaps a picture of the Jean Bart, Leon Gambetta, or something? – Joe Nutter 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good suggestion. I couldn't decide which of the French ships to add, so I added the both. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.