Talk:SM UB-50

GA Comments
I watch WP:GAN so I was surprised to see this nominated- I remember reading it when it was at DYK. Whoever reviews this needs to seriously pour over Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1 because this article is incredibly dependent on one source, a source that questions of caused a recent FAC to fail. Of 49 citations, 48 are to Uboat.net; that would greatly concern me about any source, but especially given this source's history at FAC. Courcelles 13:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's only from one user, but see User:The ed17/Archives/32. Buggie111 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Damning with faint praise. "Yes, the site (in my opinion) is reliable, but it does not meet the high-quality criterion of FA." Why would we write articles, and stamp our cross of approval on them, when we know the referencing would need a complete redo to go to the next level? Actually, though I tend to go the other way and call it unreliable, I was much more alarmed to see—save one—every citation in an article to it.  Regarding the GA criteria, you can't represent "views fairly" if you've only presented one source's view, no matter the topic.  I'm not going to take the review, so feel free to ignore me, but I felt whoever ultimately does need to read the recent developments regarding Uboat.net.  Courcelles 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I get your point. Single source article might have bias in them, so I'll try and rework this boy. I'm not sure how far I'm going to get before surrendering myself to fate, but I'll try and plow through as many non-Uboat.net refs as I can. I kind of want to ask NSD if he would postpone the review. Buggie111 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uboat.net is far from "Unreliable" but you make a strong point in that 98% of the citations are from the site. We need some diversity guys!-- White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick suggestion
Sorry, I don't have time to do the GA review, but I have one suggestion. In the References list (Citation # 48) there are two sources (Burt and Conway's) using the short citation style but don't include the full bibliographic details anywhere. These details should be added and my suggestion would be to use a Notes and a References section, whereby the Notes section uses short citations and References provides the full details. An example is included in WP:LAYOUT. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)