Talk:U-10 class submarine/GA1

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended a list of other comments which, whilst they are not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Prose is not great, containing numerous short choppy sentences - it might be worht trying to introduce some sub-clauses to make them a little more complex and smoother. However, if the individual issues listed below are addressed then I will consider the prose good enough to pass.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done some reworking of the prose. (By the way, that's the first time someone has not accused me of being overly complex in my sentence structure :) )
 * "the next step Austria-Hungary took towards strengthening their U-boat fleet was the purchase of German UB-type coastal submarines" - this does not really logically follow. Rather than indicate casuality where I'm not sure there was any, just give the facts: "Austria-Hungary strengthened their U-boat fleet with the purchase of German UB-type coastal submarines"
 * That wording reflects sequence of events in the source.
 * In that case, perhaps you could make the causal link clearer, giving some indication of how the capture of the French submarine suddenly led to the idea of creating an Anusto-Hungarian submarine fleet? In any case, I won't hold up the nomination for it. --Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh. Now I see what you were saying. Will address. Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "small, coastal submarines" does not need a comma as "coastal submarines is the noun.
 * I was wavering on "small, coastal submarines" (both adjectives describing submarine) or "small coastal submarines" (as you described), so happy to change.
 * "U-10 was the first ship of the class launched, when she was launched as the German UB-1" - remove the second launched: "U-10 was the first ship of the class launched, as the German UB-1".
 * Changed.
 * Link "K.u.K. Kriegsmarine" where it appears so that it compares with the Kaiserliche Marine link just before it.
 * Done.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Obviously there are no images, although please add some when it becomes possible.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously there are no images, although please add some when it becomes possible.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Other comments
(These comments are not essential to passing GAN)
 * As before, the "No photo available" banner is ugly and should be removed until a photo becomes available.
 * Commented out
 * There is no need to give a list of the ships in the class in their own section as the article has the funky box at the bottom listing them.
 * I've expanded the section to match other Austro-Hungarian submarine class articles. The paragraphs are based on the leads of each article (minus some of the links, and explanation of class memberships, etc.)
 * A much better solution!

(Replies to each item are interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Happy to pass! Congratulations and well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)