Talk:SM UB-12/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 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):
 * One major hole - what happened from July 1917 to May 1918? We just mention there were four different commanders, but nothing else... did she continue minelaying patrols during this time, was she out of service, was she being used as a training vessel...?
 * That's the thing, there is a big hole in coverage. Part of it is that the British got very good at intercepting and reading German transmissions, and frequently knew immediately where German mines had been laid and often had them cleared by the next day limiting any chance for them to have any effect (and indirectly let us know UB-12 was still active). As the war progressed, the British got better at anti-submarine warfare, too, which limited the effectiveness of all U-boats. A good many U-boats have similar gaps in coverage late in the war. Anyway, sources that I have don't say anything about UB-12 being used for training purposes in that period, or that she was out of service. There may be German-language sources that cover that period, but I don't have access to them. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Would it be possible to include something which talks about this gap, so as to make it clear we know it's there but there aren't any usable sources. "UB-12s activities for the next ten months are not recorded...", etc.? Shimgray | talk | 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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):
 * Only one image - is there anything else that can be dredged up? I've had a dig around on Commons but to no avail; there don't seem to even be any pictures of comparable ships of the class.
 * There are some fair-use images of different Type UB Is (should be visible in ), but I'm hesitant to use a fair-use image of a sister ship. (Ordinarily I don't mind using a free-use photo of a sister ship if that's all there is, but I think it's a little on the sketchy side to use a fair-use image for that.) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This'd explain why I didn't see them - I was looking on Commons! No, you're quite right. Shimgray | talk | 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep hoping some of the German Federal Archive images will have some of the lowly UB Is (or any of the WWI U-boats) but not yet. I did add a picture of a fishing smack since that was about half of what UB-12 sank. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This'd explain why I didn't see them - I was looking on Commons! No, you're quite right. Shimgray | talk | 15:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep hoping some of the German Federal Archive images will have some of the lowly UB Is (or any of the WWI U-boats) but not yet. I did add a picture of a fishing smack since that was about half of what UB-12 sank. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Thank you for the review. I've replied to your specific items above. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good, then, with that one unfortunate gap. Seems fair to pass, though - I mean, we've got all the content we can reasonably have, which is the point. Shimgray | talk | 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)