Talk:U-48 class submarine/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''
 * 1) It is reasonably well written: - Pass with comment.
 * Only one minor issue here, the article keeps referring to "ocean-going submarine". That seems like a redundancy, as the very word "submarine" implies that it is ocean-going.
 * It was intended to distinguish between smaller, coastal submarines and these, which were to be used in the deeper Mediterranean. But I agree it is redundant in this case, and have removed it. — Bellhalla (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable: - Pass
 * No objections here. As always, well-cited
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage: - Minor Fail
 * Given that neither of these subs were ever actually completed, you have a large amount of information on them. That said, there's a hole in the article.  It mentions that the design modifications by the Austro-Hungarian navy delayed the project, and what those design-modifications were.  However, for the reader's own ease of reading, could the original specs be put into the article somewhere as well?  It helps to put the delays into perspective.  If it was only an expansion by a few feet, it would be different than if the designs had to undergo serious modification.
 * However, should no information be available, I'm willing to compromise.
 * The specs in the source are only the modified Austrians specs. The specs of the original Weser design are not provided (though they may be out there in a some German -language source somewhere). No hints at what the changes were, but other Austrian modifications to other German submarine designs called for different sized torpedo tubes (the Austrians used smaller 17.7-inch torpedoes in most of their subs) and Austrian deck guns. — Bellhalla (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 only has an infobox, but that's good enough for a GA.
 * 1) Overall:
 * On Hold
 * There's a few bugs to work out in the completeness of its coverage, but other than that it looks to be in good shape. Contact me on my talk-page if you need assistance. Cam (Chat) 00:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Due to the Christmas holidays, I currently have reduced ability to access Wikipedia and have not had the time to sufficiently address concerns raised in this GA nomination. I am hopeful that this can be kept open until 31 December to allow extra time. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm not accessing the pedia as much over the break either.  I'm willing to wait as long as I need - this article is VERY close to GA. Merry Christmas - Cam (Chat) 19:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope I've addressed your concerns. (Specific replies are interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. All looks good.  Passing GA....Cam (Chat) 00:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)