Talk:SM U-36/GA1

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

Reviewer: Benea (talk · contribs) 19:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm this is an interesting one. I don't think it is quite a quick-fail scenario but there is a lot of work to be done here still.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There is practically no WP:LEAD to this article. The very basic info is given. This needs expanding to give a fairly full overview of the submarine's service. Details you might include are her loss, the sinkings, areas of operations, notable officers and commanders, wider context, etc.
 * There are also too many tiny stubby one- or two-sentence long paragraphs. Amalgamate them into larger ones for ease of reading.
 * The prose is confusing and unclear in places. For example one paragraph ends with '...taking one prize.' The next begins 'Shortly before she was sunk, U-36 intercepted and captured the American windjammer Pass of Balmaha'. The Pass of Balmaha is the prize mentioned in the previous paragraph but this separation makes them appear as two unrelated vessels.
 * Also what time period specifically is meant by 'shortly'?
 * ✅ 06:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ 06:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Conversions from metres to feet is common in the infobox, conversion templates will help here. Replace '@' with 'at'.
 * (partially) ✅ 06:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 'An ensign' - link ensign to make it clear it is not the naval flag that is meant.
 * ✅ 06:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of using multiple cites to the same source at in a sentence, group them at the end. I.e. 'On 22 July, U-36 also attacked a group of fishing vessels west of the Orkney Islands, sinking nine small trawlers[4] and two sailing vessels,[4] and taking one prize.[4]' Read 'On 22 July, U-36 also attacked a group of fishing vessels west of the Orkney Islands, sinking nine small trawlers and two sailing vessels, and taking one prize.[4]'
 * ✅ 06:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The information in the list section should be amalgamated into the main text, many details are omitted there. Try converting the list into a table (see GA SM U-69 for an example). Instead of putting the tonnage into the text, put it into the table, which will make reading easier. Certainly make the dates complete rather than using 'Jun'. And italicise the ship names.
 * Reorganise the headings. All of the article is 'history'. SM U-69 instead uses 'Design and construction', 'Service career' and 'Ships sunk or damaged' for example.
 * ✅ 10:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 'U-36 returned to North Sea station 17 July', make sure its 'U-36 returned to North Sea station on 17 July'. Other instances of this throughout the text.
 * Some of the external links are not about this submarine but the naval war more generally. The only one that seems relevant is the U-boat.net one. Make sure you give full details with the link, the cite web template would be appropriate.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * A lot of cites to 'National Archives, Kew: HW 7/3, Room 40, History of German Naval Warfare 1914–1918'. Both cite 4 and cite 8 go to the same place. A lot of this has come from User:AchimKoerver's additions, which were highly problematic in their day. Questions were raised that a lot of them were the result of primary sources, some of which were shown to be inaccurate in later secondary sources. These are therefore of dubious reliability and should be replaced.
 * Large number of references, most of which are not being used as references. Move anything that isn't, if it seems particularly relevant to the article topic, to a 'Further reading' section.
 * ✅ 06:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ 06:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * One reference is not in the reference section, Pardoe's The Cruise of the Sea Eagle. Try using short form cites in the notes section, and leave the full form for the references. E.g. 'Pardoe, The Cruise of the Sea Eagle, p. ?'
 * No page number for Pardoe, or isbn for the work.
 * ✅ 09:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Try separating out a 'citations' section and 'notes' section, using the latter for additional detail like 'The British called them "cruises".'
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It seems to cover all the salient points, since she had such a short career. I would however want to see at least some details on the U-boat's design and capabilities, and some information on their role in wartime. Doesn't have to be much, but just give some valuable context for the reader.
 * 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):
 * The infobox image seems fine. the Pass of Balmaha picture is more problematic. No source or date, the rationale may not be valid, though the image may well be free use.
 * (hopefully) ✅ 07:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The infobox image seems fine. the Pass of Balmaha picture is more problematic. No source or date, the rationale may not be valid, though the image may well be free use.
 * (hopefully) ✅ 07:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I'm going to put this on hold, but as I said, I think there is a lot that needs doing here. Have a look at other GA submarine articles of the period, e.g. SM U-69, for ideas on formatting, structure, etc. I've just done a first pass, there will probably more that occurs to me, but these seem to be some of the biggest issues. Benea (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, that is reasonable. I had some reservations in submitting this for review in the first place, and I didn't reasonably think that it would pass this time around. Your input is greatly helpful here, and I thank you for taking the time to review this. Unfortunately, I don't see all of these issues getting resolved now, as I will be rather busy with things in the outside world for the next 2-ish months, but I will try to get at least most of the prose problems cleaned up presently. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine and I quite understand. I don't think it would be hard to get this to GA with a few good solid sources and taking an existing GA as a template. I'll close this for now, but feel free to renominate when you think its ready and I would be happy to give it another look over. Benea (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)