Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SM UB-45


 * 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-45

 * Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it meets the requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support - Here are my initial comments
 * 'SM UB-45 was a Type UB II submarine or U-boat for the German Imperial Navy (German: Kaiserliche Marine) during World War I' - Shouldn't it be 'used by the German Imperial Navy', as 'for' doesn't make much sense? I'd also sawp the placement of submarine and U-Boat.
 * I changed it to "built for and operated by the"; The reason for using "submarine" first is that the class article—German Type UB II submarine—uses that word in the title. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'UB-45 was broken into railcar sized components' - Endash between railcar and sized?
 * How about the hyphen I added, instead? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How much did the submarine cost to build?
 * I've not seen anything that indicated the price. I agree it would be interesting to know. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'As a UB II boat, U-47 could also carry twice the torpedo load of her UB I counterparts, and nearly ten times as much fuel' - Wrong Sub name here, surely?
 * D'oh! Fixed. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'UB-45 was broken into railcar-sized components and shipped overland to the Austro-Hungarian port of Pola' - Wikilink Austro-Hungary?
 * You know, I've done so many A-H subs that I just kind of assumed I'd already linked it in the article. Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'In mid-July, Palis and UB-45 achieved their first success when they sank two steamers in a three-day span' - This sounds wrong - I know what you mean, but rewording it so that it's just 'the submarine [or the sub title] sank two steamers...'.
 * Yeah, that was kind of clumsy. I've reworded to In mid-July, UB-45's first success occurred when she sank two steamers in a three-day span.
 * 'First, Virginia was sunk on the 16th while carrying salt destined for Calcutta' - Does Virginia (and all other ships) have a prefix? I'd also state that it was a British ship first, not later on in the sentence.
 * I think that all of were steamships and could properly use the "SS" prefix, however, Uboat.net (the main source for ships sunk and info about them) does not use a prefix with any of them. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'After Germany's conquest of Romania (see Romania during World War I)' - the sudden wikilink in brackets looks out of place; recommending piping it through 'After Germany's conquest of Romania'.
 * Done.
 * 'the German Imperial Navy had sufficient fuel oil for submarines located in the Black Sea' - Meaning of this is unclear - did they have submarines there previously? Perhaos qualify with 'for submarines to operate in the Black Sea'.
 * Reworded
 * 'In 1932, the Bulgarian Navy conceived a plan to search for the wreck of UB-45 with the intent of raising it for restoration as a training vessel, or, at the very least, to recover the sunken U-boat's 8.8-centimeter (3.5 in) deck gun. An additional aim stated was the recovery of the remains of the men that went down in UB-45.' - Citation please
 * Everything in the paragraph comes from the same page of the same article, cited at the end of the paragraph. If you think it necessary or expedient to specifically add the same citation, I can. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'UB-45's wreck was raised in an operation that cost several times less than that of a new 8.8-centimeter gun' - poor grammar, and meaning unclear - did you mean 'several times more'? A citation would be good as well.
 * Reworded slightly, but the gun was worth several times more than what was spent to raise UB-45. I'm completely open to suggestions for better wording. The reason for the strange comparative was that the article gave no indication of the absolute amount spent on UB-45's salvage operation or the value of the gun. (See response above regarding source.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'A restoration of the submarine to operating condition, as either a training vessel or a military, would cost 21 million leva, significantly less than the 56 to 65 million leva that a comparable new submarine would cost' - I'd like a citation here as well, and possibly some sort of translation into how many dollars/pounds this was.
 * The Bulgarian lev article reports that in 1928 the rate was set at 1 lev ≈ 10.9 mg of gold, and in 1940 was pegged at 32.75 lev for 1 Reichsmark. But a quick search doesn't come up with any citable source for the $/£ value for the leva, pre-1990. (I've posted a question at WikiProject Bulgaria for some help.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the 'Ships Sunk' table, I'd like to see the vessels prefix's if they exist.
 * See response above, re: Virginia. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that u-boat.net is a reliable source?
 * I consider it one, and per a previous ACR (includes a list of books that cite the website) and a current FAC (so far, at least), the consensus seems to agree with that position. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are my comments for the article at the moment. I may add more at a later time. Skinny87 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I've interspersed responses to your specific suggestion above. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved to Support; U-boat.net looks fine, if you can't find sources for specific sections then that's hardly your fault, and the grammar seems fine now. Could I be cheeky and ask that you reciprocate by reviewing Operation Freshman that's above? :) Skinny87 (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for missing your "cheeky" comment before now… I'll be happy to review it. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A1. Referencing and source quality look good.
 * A2. Coverage seems fine.
 * A3. The article is structured and organised appropriately.
 * A4. Prose and MOS compliance are good (I made a few tweaks; please amend as necessary!)
 * A5. Supporting material is relevant and suitably licensed.
 * Verdict: Support, and congratulations on another excellent article in your series ;) EyeSerene talk 20:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I'm not sure if you can get away with having two fair-use images in the article, but I don't think it's a big problem.  Note 7 appears to duplicate information already in the sentence succeeded by footnote #16.  Otherwise, excellent work as usual. Cla68 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I would agree about with you on fair use if both were of substantially the same thing, like different views of the submarine, but I think the rarity of a funeral procession 20 years after a boat went down helps justify the second image. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:01, 5 March 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.