Talk:SM U-27 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • There are quite a few redlinked ships in the Service career section. Is there a good chance that all of these are notable enough to have articles at some point?
     • All of the redlinks are for commissioned vessels, which are generally considered to be notable — Bellhalla (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
   • Is it at all notable that most of the ships U-27 sunk were little? I mean, an 11-ton ship is basically a big fishing boat, right? Was the crew just being cruel, or was there a reason for sinking these little ships? It would be interesting to add this into the article if you have something that's referenced, if not, it's just my personal curiosity asking :)
     • Yes, you're right, those are small boats. Generally U-boats hailed and searched small boats like this, allowed the crew to board lifeboats and then either opened the sea valves or placed explosives to sink the ships. In general, small boats like this were of little military value, other than in a total warfare sense. Unfortunately I have no source that talks about the whys in this case. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • I see the Grant reference in the Bibliography, but not in the Notes or References sections. However, I may have just completely missed it...
     • It wasn't used after all, so I removed it. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
   • The last line of the Design and construction section could use a reference.
     • Added. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • A few comments about prose and references, so I am placing this review on hold for now. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
     • No questions. Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
       • Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Thanks for the prompt response, and thanks for the explanation on the little boats above. Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)