Talk:Havmanden-class submarine (1911)/GA1

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

Hi! I have elected to review this article against the Good article criteria, and should have my initial comments posted up within the next hour. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have completed reviewing this article under the criteria, and am placing it on hold pending some concerns outlined below. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Would it be possible to intergrate the years the class was in service in the lead, to allow some clarification?
 * Yeah, that might be useful information in the lead. :)
 * Some sections of the lead are slightly awkward. For example: "The class was also later known as the A class. The design was by Whitehead & Co. of Fiume and three of the boats were constructed by that Austro-Hungarian firm. The remaining three were built under license in Copenhagen." Perhaps change this to something along the lines of: "Also later known as the A class, the boats were designed by the Austro-Hungarian firm Whitehead & Co. of Fiume. The first three submarines were built by the company, while the remaining three were constructed under license in Copenhagen."
 * Changed.
 * "Triton and Najaden were launched in 1913, while Nymfen, the final ship launched, was launched in February 1914." - the repetition of "launched" just doesn't sound right. Consider changing it to something like: "Triton and Najaden were launched in 1913, while Nymfen, the final ship constructed, was launched in February 1914."
 * Changed
 * "Initially Havfruen, Havmanden, and Thetis received pennant numbers of H 1, H 2, and T 1, respectively, but were changed to 2, 3, and 4, respectively, in April 1913." - the repetition of "respectively" doesn't sit well. Considering cutting the second out completely.
 * Removed.
 * Under the "Service careers" section, I think it would be best if the last two paragraphs were combined.
 * Combined.
 * In the "Class members" section, the 2den April (A 5) is interchangeably referred to by her several names in the paragraph about her. Please remain more consistant. It would probably be best to be referred to as "2den April" after her name change than "Triton".
 * Yes, absolutely, and changed.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article doesn't go into major detail on the class. Is there any more information available?
 * For some of these early submarines classes, there's not a whole lot out there (in English, at least). Until/unless other sources are found, I think GA is the highest level to which this article can aspire.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've interspersed my replies to the your specific points above. By the way, I can tell it was late at night when I originally wrote this article, because it was pretty pedestrian. I think it's much better after incorporating your great suggestions. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well all of my concerns have been addressed, and I have no problems in passing the article now. Congratulations! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)