Talk:HMS E18

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HMS E18 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

HMS E18 was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 8, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 29, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Military history: Maritime / British / European / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

A quick suggestion: try using {{Ship table}} for the infobox. It prevents the sub-level heading lines from running through the box. --Laserbeamcrossfire 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I knew there was a pretty syntax somewhere... Otherwise, I feel it's pretty complete; the two engagements mentioned are about the only ones of note, since Baltic patrols seemed to be quiet most of the time. Hmm. Shimgray | talk | 09:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good! --Laserbeamcrossfire 16:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

At a minimum (since I'm not really qualified to comment on the rest of the article), the Notes section really needs to be cleaned up if this article is going to qualify. The notes would look a lot better if they were formatted according to the templates for citations. Also, a note shouldn't say "some sources specify...". It should state which sources are being referenced. MLilburne 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "some sources specify" is that the sources in question are random Internet pages; they're not particularly reliable and they're not saying where they got it from, but the claim keeps turning up. I'm not sure how to best deal with this; there is probably a single source for the claim, but it's not turned up. Shimgray | talk | 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. My opinion is that if the sources really aren't reliable ones, you should either explicitly say so in the footnotes (not letting the reader think that "some sources" refers to other sources that you've already cited), or simply omit the information altogether. MLilburne 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "KE41" thing is actually the entire reason this article was researched in the first place, to try and figure out what was up with that ;-). I've rephrased it to "is sometimes named as" and made the naval-history thing contrast a bit better. Will see if I can think of a better solution. Shimgray | talk | 21:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to pass the article since I find it clear, well-written, and adequately referenced. While there is always room for improvement, I think that the article meets GA standards in its current state. Eluchil404 17:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

The lead does not describe the article well and is inadequate for the purpose. I recommend two decently sized paragraphs summarising the lifespan of the submarine.
Sources. Vast swathes of the article are unsourced. There has to be at least on source evey paragraph in addition to sources on statistics, quotes and controversial statements.
More images would be nice, perhaps further illustrating the submarine, its opponents or its role.
Sources are a mess; there are really only three, no page numbers are given and the one websource has no publication detail.
The article could do with more section headings to further aid understanding.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that nothing has been done on this article and the problems are such that the article cannot be swiftly patched up and so I am regretfully delisting this from GA. When it is back up to standard please nominate it again.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]