Talk:SM U-66/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written:
 * Not Yet My main concern is the shortness "Service Career" section.
 * 1) There should be more detail about the six combat patrols that the sub went on. Where specifically were these patrols conducted? Was the sub alone when it attacked, or was it part of a wolf pack? Was it attacking convoys or targeting single stray ships? Which other Subs of the fleet did it interact with?
 * All good questions. Regrettably, the source for that (Uboat.net) just states the number of patrols, but I'll see what I can find though. The Allies generally didn't use convoys until mid-to-late 1917, so most of these would be individual ships.
 * 1) The article should also talk about some of the ships which were sunk. I know there's a table for them, but there should be some information about how they were sunk in the text. The capture of the Livingstone should recieve some detail, as well. To the extent that the article could say things like "During a patrol on X day, the sub sunk ships A B and C during an attack on a convoy" or something to that effect. The details look good in the table but they should also be discussed in a linear perspective in the text.
 * For so many of the ships sunk, there's not much more than the bare details. I felt that by listing them in the table that they could be more efficiently presented. It would also help to avoid a whole bunch of "then they sank ShipB at positionB on DateB, and next they sank ShipC on DateC at PositionC…".
 * 1) If possible, it would also be a good idea to find info on the commanders of the submarine but I know details like this aren't easy to find on World War I ships.
 * Uboat.net lists dates of birth and death where available, but unless the commander was awarded an Iron Cross or a Blue Max there's not a lot else (and even in those cases there may not be much).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable:
 * Pass No problems there.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage:
 * Not Yet As said above, there should be more details on where and when the ship was operating.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * Pass no problems there.
 * 1) It is stable:
 * Pass no problems there.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
 * Pass the infoboxes are sufficient for a GA.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold so the above issues can be addressed. - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  01:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replied to your specific comments above. I'll do what I can to address your concerns and will post a note here when I have done so. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've expanded the article substantially and hope that the expanded content addresses your concerns. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very well done, the article looks great. GA is passed, congratulations! - Ed! (talk) (Hall of Fame)  18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)