Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SM UB-10


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SM UB-10

 * Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

This article is about the first of the German Type UB I submarines of World War I to enter service. The article has passed a GA review and I believe that it fulfills the A-Class requirements. (Note: Shields appears as an ambiguous via the link in the toolbox; I'm not sure if it is North Shields or South Shields which is why I have left it.) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, but this time I did find one problem: the phrase "were all landed safely.[26]" should not be passive, and should explain what "landed" means...Were they taken prisoner by the U-boat? Escaped in lifeboats to England or Belgium? – Joe   N  00:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry it took so long; I had to dig through the news archives. What I found was the sentence "The British steamer Fulgens … has been sunk. The crew has been landed." Typically, this means they were picked up by a non-enemy vessel and taken to some port, somewhere. (If they had all been taken captive—not a common occurrence—a news article would likely have stated that fact.) Given the scant details in the source, I changed the sentence to read …the crew of the ship—UB-10's largest victim to-date[16]—were all saved. which is about as definitive as anyone can be. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Too bad it isn't covered better, but that change does make it better. – Joe   N  22:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Excellent work, as usual.  Just a few minor comments/questions:
 * Do the sources say why the boat was converted to a minelayer? Was it part of a new strategy or campaign?
 * Not that can be cited. The implication is that by that time of the war they were pretty much obsolete in terms of offensive capabilities. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do the sources give the depth of the water where the boat was scuttled?
 * No. From the coordinates provided, it was right off the Zeebrugge Mole, which was apparently deep enough for a British cruiser during the Zeebrugge Raid. Coincidentally, I've not seen anything that says the wreck was raised, nor have I seen anything that says the wreck is still there, either.
 * I assume that Uboat.net is considered a reliable source, much like CombinedFleet.com.
 * Yes, from precedents at FAC it is. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have inline citations within the footnotes, which I assume means that each foonote is attributed to the reference cited near it in its parent paragraph.
 * Yes, that's correct. Are there any that you think should be cited for clarity? — Bellhalla (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, questions on minor points aside, excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Great article.  Minor comments: The second sentence in the intro ("The submarine was scuttled in October 1918") seems out of place chronologically; also, the scuttling is mentioned a second time at the end of the intro anyway. Who rescued the crew of Fulgens - the submarine crew or someone else?    Socrates2008 (  Talk  )   12:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.