Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SM U-66


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009.

SM U-66

 * Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

This is an article about the class leader of the GermanU-66-class of submarines during World War I. Note: From my research I've not been able to find any images of U-66 (or other class members) other than a single line drawing that would probably not meet NFCC. The article has passed a GA review and a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref format comment -- issues found with WP:REFTOOLS.
 * Tennent, p. 210.	Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead -- TRU  CO   21:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for the check. (I tried to get the reftools working but couldn't get it going on my system…)— Bellhalla (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, its a great tool to find things like this. (Ref formatting found up to speed).-- TRU  CO   22:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - an excellent article. I have performed a minor copyedit and have one or two comments. Otherwise, great work--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "(the capital of Massachusetts nicknamed, coincidentally, the "Bay State")" - interesting, but is it relevant?
 * An image would be nice - is there no image of any submarines of this class that could give an idea of her shape?
 * Thanks for the review and copyedit. As to your two points:
 * I think the "Bay State" thing is interesting, but could agree to lose it if there's a consensus
 * As I mentioned in the nom statement, the only illustration I've found is of any sort for U-66 (or U-67—U-70) is a side view line drawing that is of uncertain copyright status. Given past interpretations of NFCC criterion 1 ("Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent… could be created…" [emphasis added]), I don't think it would be acceptable, especially in a featured article (if this article is so deemed, of course). — Bellhalla (talk) 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll teach me to read things more carefully! Either of those are at your discretion, I thought it was a great article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't a "free" image based of the line drawing be a derivative work and therefore copyrighted as well? — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, if the "free" work was based only on the line drawing, then, yes, it would be a derivative work. But the key in the NFCC—again, as I understand it—is whether a free image could be created, a different matter than whether it is likely to be created. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. I gave the article a hard look at A-class review and couldn't find any issues with it. An excellent article on the subject. Cla68 (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty good. A few things could be improved in the writing, but I'm not opposing on the basis of 1a.
 * Overlinked. Do we really need "launched" and "commissioned"? And "displace"? Oh, I suppose so, since at least they're all specifically on ships; but consider instead listing them in the "See also" section, where you wouldn't have to pipe them so they look like dictionary words, and readers would be much more likely to follow them up. Interrupting one's reading of the lead seems unlikely. Not a deal-breaker. But I do draw the line at "diesel engine", "electric motors", and the repeat link for "deck gun".
 * I removed the links you mentioned. Are there any others that you think excessive? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "which increased the surface displacement by 96 metric tons (106 short tons) and the submerged by 48 metric tons (53 short tons)." The ellipsis doesn't really work.
 * " The torpedo load was increased by a third, from 9 to 12, and the deck gun was upgraded from the 66 mm (2.6 in) gun originally specified to an 88 mm (3.5 in) one." Can't think how to avoid the "one" at the end. Any ideas?
 * I reworded both of these sentences to avoid the problems you noted — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * " U-66 was able to cast off at a moment's notice and attack any enemy submarines encountered." --> "to attack an enemy submarine."
 * Reworded. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "U-66 was not credited with the sinking any vessels of any kind during this time." "of" is missing. Or remove "the".
 * Fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "18" then "fifteen"? See MOSNUM. And and apostrophe is required on minutes.
 * I replaced fifteen with 15 and added the apostrophe — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the rule on italicising the 's here: Sjolyst 's? Might be less fussy if all italicised. Tony   (talk)  12:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the ship name (only) is italicized. I can reword to avoid the possessive if you think it best. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Queries Hi, that was an interesting read, but I have a few questions:
 * Santanderino - a liner with 40 passengers and crew (4 dead 36 survivors) thats not a lot for a liner, would you mind checking that?
 * I had included liner because of the title of The Washington Post article cited. It looks like another source calls Santanderino a cargo ship, so I've removed the word liner. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK 40 is in line with other cargo ships, she may well have been one of those cargo ships that took the occasional passenger.  Were Spiel  Chequers  17:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Towed past Gibraltar. I can see why the U3s would need a tow as their range was quite limited, but these boats had an adequate range to sail from Kiel to Trieste. Would you mind checking why the Austrians didn't try to get past Gibraltar? I would be surprised if boats of their range would have been towed on such a journey, but I could understand if they decided not to run the risk anyway.
 * I rechecked the source: it said transferred, not towed, so I have changed the text accordingly. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks that makes sense.  Were Spiel  Chequers  17:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What escape systems did these boats have (if any).
 * None that are reported in sources I have. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "The U-7 class was seen by the Austro-Hungarian Navy as an improved version of its U-3 class," some detail as to why it was seen as an improvement would be appropriate.
 * I can list things that I think make the U-7 class boats better: they were bigger, faster, held more torpedoes, were better armed, they probably had more reliable engines, and the manufacturer had about four more years of submarine-building experience since the U-3 class was built. Regrettably, the source doesn't give reasons why the Austro-Hungarian Navy saw it that way. I could include some of the comparisons of the two classes, but I think it borders on WP:SYNTHESIS to try and make specific connections. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "The master of Neath was taken prisoner,[49] but had been released and landed at Queenstown two days later." I take it that a German Submarine didn't dock in Ireland during WWI? But I'd like to know how that release was done, and incidentally how many prisoners she could carry.
 * That would be nice to know, but I don't have any source to provide details about Neath's master. U-boats generally didn't have much extra room, but are known in some cases to have carried one or two back to Germany. Part of Germany's rationale/justification for unrestricted submarine warfare was the U-boats didn't have room to hold crews captive. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As completed she needed a crew of 36 but was lost with a crew of 40. Is that correct and if so what caused the change?
 * Sometime U-boats carried extra men for training, special missions, etc. The sources don't say in this specific case why the difference. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK that makes sense

Sorry thats a long list but it did pique my interest.  Were Spiel  Chequers  13:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A little more detail as to crew composition and conditions would be appropriate. I.e. how many were officers, were the men volunteers or conscripts, personal space onboard and crew facilities etc.
 * As ideal as it would be to include that information, sources don't provide it, so it's not really available to add. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Nicely written, interesting stuff. Thanks for taking the trouble to investigate my pedanticisms, a pity if the sources don't cover all of them but I wanted to be sure that they'd been checked.  Were Spiel  Chequers  17:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Image review: the copyrights and details of the two images have been corrected (sources and licenses were incorrect to begin with...), so no issues remain. Jappalang (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.