Talk:SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' The article so far is pretty good. I have a few small comments, before I pass it.
 * The wording in a few sentences might be reviewed. An example would be "There is no record of how long it took for UB-15's sections to be assembled..." Is there no record, or was there a record that was lost or is now inaccessible? I'd imagine records were kept. However, from that sentence, all those thoughts were sprung, which may or may not be a good thing. My suggestion would be "A similar ship was built in two weeks," or something to that effect. I'd read through the article a few times and try to clarify what may be a confusing sentence.
 * How about "There is no known surviving (italics are mine) record of how long it took for UB-15's sections to be assembled. However, a similar ship (UB-3) was built in two weeks. I think that that addresses the issue nicely.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That works. Implement the sentence how you see fit, and I'll take a look. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the sentense. You can go ahead and take a look.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is a reference after every commander necessary, or is it possible to lay the source right after the Commander: preface, considering they are all from the same source?
 * I removed the refs from all te commanders (and the one for victories) and added one ref on the top of the section entitled Service record as U-11. Hope that this is a good alternative.-- Coldplay Expért  Let's talk  18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Works well, thanks. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is a better picture possible? I understand that with submarines they may not be, but it would be nice to see more than just the top of the ship. If it is not possible, that's not a problem.
 * Sadly, there is no known image of SM U-11 other than this one. And this one is even copyrighted! Sorry.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, okay. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed a few typos I saw quickly, but I'd run through and make sure that any grammatical or spelling errors are gone. I didn't see any through my read through, but it never hurts to double check.
 * Malleus has fixed the rest of the spelling mistakes. Done.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to add the mph as well as the kmph, considering that both knots and kilometers would be foreign to a large portion of readers.
 * I'm not the best at these things. So can you point out exactly where this is mentioned and I'll get back to you on this as soon as I have found out how to fix it?-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "U-11 was capable of up to 6.5 knots (12.0 km/h) while surfaced and 5.5 knots (10.2 km/h)..." Hope this answers your question. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go and convert the number into miles.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  00:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Converted and done.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  01:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thanks. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The second note might be more useful in the infobox, where the issue of the transfer and the date comes up first.
 * I've moved the note into the infobox.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "1,500 nautical miles (2,800 km) @ 5 kn (9.3 km/h) surfaced" - Not being common with ship articles, is the @ symbol commonly used like this in this context?
 * No. I've replaced the @ with "at".-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can address the concerns, or if I am in error, than the article will pass. Thanks for an interesting read.

Reviewer: Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just wanted to comment and say that I have read your concerns. I'll get to all of them hopefully by the end of the day. Thanks!-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  18:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With the exeption of conversion(s), I've fixed all of these small issues that you mentioned.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)