Talk:British B-class submarine/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Disambiguations: Two found which need to be fixed:
 * Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Linkrot: External links all work:
 * Alt text: Images lack alt text, but this is not a requirement for GA. I'd like to suggest that it is added, but won't hold it against the article.

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * in the lead you have the word "defense", I think this probably should be "defence". Given that the article is a British subject, British English should probably be used;
 * Yes, I usually don't tend to remember to change the s to c.
 * in the lead "B10" should be in italics for consistency throughout the article;
 * Yes
 * in the Design and description section, I think you need a linking clause in the first sentence, such as "and were", in between "preceding A class" and ", intended for coastal patrol work."
 * Yes
 * in the Propulsion section, "better batteries" might be reworded to "more efficient batteries";
 * How about more powerful instead?
 * That's fine. Looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Armament section, "by World War I" might be reworded to "by the outbreak of World War I";
 * Yes
 * in the History section, "Nearly in half, she sank almost immediately..." I think this should have a linking word inserted, for instance: "Cut nearly in half, she sank..."
 * Yes
 * in the Home waters subsection, "they'd be able" probably should be reworded to "they would be able..." (the contraction seems a bit informal to me);
 * Fixed
 * in the Home waters subsection "maneuver" is the US English form of the word (as per above comment about "defense");
 * Indeed
 * in the Home waters subsection "Portsmouth for local defense" (defense/defence as above);
 * Yes
 * in the Mediterranean waters section, this sentence needs attention: "mooring wires of mine would not get entangled and dragged down to the boat." There appears to be a tense issue. "Mine" I think should be "mines", and "dragged down to the boat" I think should be "drag the boat down";
 * Yes, mine should be plural, but the rest is OK as is. Think about the situation a little. If a sub at 80 ft snags a mine floating at 20 ft while underway, what's going to happen? The mine, which is greatly outmassed by the sub, is going to be dragged down until it hits the snag point. The submarine will not ride the cable up.
 * Yes, you're right, now that I think about it that way. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Mediterranean waters section, "Dardanelles" should be linked on first mention, rather than in the second paragraph of the section;
 * Yes
 * in the Mediterranean waters section, I think this should be reworded: "guards broke and was banging against the hull and making a lot of noise and vibration..." to "guards broke and began began banging against the hull and making a lot of noise and vibration..."
 * See how it reads now.
 * Looks good, well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Mediterranean waters section, "Before sinking Mesudiye spotted..." needs a comma to be inserted after "Before sinking";
 * Yes
 * in the Mediterranean waters section, I think a linking word is required here: "The boat made it back safely". Perhaps, "Nevertheless, the boat made it back safely..."
 * Yes
 * in the Mediterranean waters section "...withdrawn from this duty as they were totally unsuitable for this duty..." (repetition of word "duty");
 * 1st use changed to task.
 * in the Mediterranean waters section there appears to be a tense issue here: "The B-class boats were now redundant" (now being the issue). I think it should be "After this, the B-class boats were deemed to be redundant..."
 * I really should have explained why they were redundant better. See how it reads to you.
 * in the Adriatic section, perhaps a little clarification is required here: "...after the Italian declaration of war..." Declaration of war upon who? The way it stands now some readers might think the Italians declared war against the British and that the subs were to be employed against the Italians;
 * Clarified
 * in the Adriatic section, who suggested the transfer of the boats?
 * The Brits, clarified.
 * in the Adriatic section, "fourteen British and French submarines" I think should be "14 British and French submarines" per the Manual of Style;
 * Yes
 * in the Adriatic section, "B11, now commanded by Lieutenant..." (now is an issue for me here, I think it creates a tense issue and should be changed to something like this: "B11, under the command of Lieutenant...")
 * in the Adriatic section, I think this should be reworded: "...and were captured by B11." As B11 is already mentioned, the final "by B11" at the end of the sentence is redundant;
 * Yes
 * in the Adriatic section, "B8 and B11 both were missed" I think should be reworded to this: "Both B8 and B11 were missed..."
 * Agreed
 * in the Adriatic section, "...drift towards the enemy coast" - can you be more specific where this occured?
 * No location is given in either source I have.
 * Okay, no dramas. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * in the Adriatic section, I think this should be reordered: "On 9 August 1916 B10 was sunk by a near-miss during an Austrian air raid that blew a hole about 6 feet (1.8 m) in diameter in her pressure hull. She was re-floated, but a fire gutted her while she was under repair and she was sold for scrap. She was the first submarine sunk by air attack". The bit about being the first submarine sunk by air attack is quite notable, I think. So perhaps it should be mentioned in the subject sentence at the beginning of the paragraph as such: "B10 became the first submarine sunk by air attack when she sunk on 9 August after a near miss..."
 * Much better wording
 * in the Adriatic section, this sentence should be separated from the previous sentence to form a new paragraph as it doesn't relate to the previous sentence: "The B-class boats had reached the limits of their usefulness and the survivors were withdrawn to Malta on 30 October where they were paid off pending a decision on their fate." I would suggest combining it with the following paragraph ("In August 1917 the boats were converted...");
 * Yes
 * in the Bibliography section, the year range in the title of the Akerman source should have an endash per WP:DASH
 * Done.
 * Done.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * generally very good, but in the History section, is there a general reference that could be inserted into the table in the heading fields to cover all the information such as launch date, completion and fate? (suggestion only);
 * you only have two paper sources and one web source, are there any other sources that could be quoted (this is not a major problem, I don't think, and I wouldn't hold it against the article for GA, but I'm just adding it here for consideration before you take it to ACR or FAC);


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Generally very good, but I think that perhaps a small section called "Fate" should be added to the article after the History section. Currently their fate doesn't receive much attention. Currently you mention that they were sold for scrap between 1919 and 1921 in the lead, but in the final part of the Adriatic subsection you simply have "paid off at Malta where they were sold after the war" (this is a suggestion only).


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * This looks fine to me.


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * The article is not currently subject to an edit war or constant revisions.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
 * Images are all appropriately licenced.


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * There are a few things that I feel need to be done to bring this article up to GA status, however, it is generally quite good and I do not feel that these warrant a quick fail as I believe that they are able to be achieved within the required timeframe (which is negotiable). As such I will place it on hold to see what changes are made before deciding upon the outcome. I'm prepared to accept any reasonable explainations of my concerns, and any changes will be taken into consideration, of course. Good work so far;
 * Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the ✅ tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time for such a thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks for addressing all my concerns. I am passing this for GA. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)