Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2018 [1].

SM U-1 (Austria-Hungary)

[edit]
Nominator(s): White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back at it with another submarine article. This time, it's the lead ship of the U-1 class, U-1. The main article dealing with her class was just promoted to FA-status about a day ago, and this article recently passed an A-class review late last month. I've incorporated some of the recommendations I received during the U-1-class FAC into this article since the ACR closed, and I think it's now ready to be taken to FAC.

Now, about the submarine itself. U-1 was the first U-boat build for and commissioned into the Austro-Hungarian Navy. Her design included several unique features mechanics that you don't often see on many other submarines, such as a diving chamber to enter and exit the submarine while it was underwater. Perhaps most bizarrely, she was also equipped with wheels (yes, you read that right...wheels) to "travel" along the seafloor. This was largely because she was an experimental design intended to evaluate competing proposals from three different foreign firms.

Throughout her career, U-1 was used mostly for training purposes, though she was briefly mobilized during the First Balkan War, and she was occasionally assigned recon missions out of Trieste and Pola during World War I. However, she never sank or damaged any enemy vessels during the war. Declared obsolete in January 1918, she was again relegated to training missions before being put up at Pola near the end of the war. After a brief period of chaos regarding who owned the submarine following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (as was the case with literally every single ship in the Austro-Hungarian fleet at the end of the war), U-1 was seized by, and later granted to, Italy. The Italians decided to ultimately scrap the submarine in Pola in 1920.--White Shadows Let’s Talk 02:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]

Lead, 1a:

  • "as part of a competitive evaluation of foreign submarine designs after domestic proposals were rejected by the Navy"—why not active voice? "as part of a competitive evaluation of foreign submarine designs after the Navy had rejected domestic proposals" (I added "had" ... please check)
  • This is historically accurate. The Navy did not reach out to foreign firms until after rejecting the domestic proposals presented to them.
"after domestic proposals were rejected by the Navy"—"the Navy" is still well and truly the actor; active/passive makes utterly no difference to that. But passive is unnecessarily complex grammar. This is nothing to do with historical accuracy. Tony (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hiccup every time I see "she" and "her". If you must use sexist language—as the MilHist males have successfully fought tooth and nail to be allowed to persist with—could we not at least ration it a little? Many of them are redundant, anyway: why two "she"s in one sentence? "She was 30.48 meters (100 ft 0 in) long and, depending on whether she was surfaced or submerged, displaced between 229.7 and 248.9 metric tons (226–245 long tons; 253–274 short tons)." Note that range typography is not permitted after "between" or "from". In the end, it's not easy to know exactly what you mean: so surfaced, the tests were lower in that range, and submerged they were toward 248.9? Are those averages?
  • I took this article to FAC to expect serious inquires regarding the quality of the article's content, research, and coverage, not to have to address petty politics and flimsy accusations of latent sexism in my writing. If your objection is word repetition in a sentence (one of my personal pet peeves), I'm with you. However, I am not here to re-litigate conventional naming practices, and this FAC has nothing to do with such a thing.
There's nothing "latent" about your sexist language, and if you want to refer to it in terms of "petty politics", it makes you look worse. If you'd read my comment properly, you'd understand that I know better than to ask for it to be eradicated. All I'm asking is for references to the submarine to be rotated with more skill, to avoid, for example, two shes in one sentence. That's like avoiding words such as "this" too often. The bonus is that it's less offensive to female readers, and to male readers who care. The article is not for you and your mates: it's for our readers. Tony (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know better than to ask for it to be eradicated...you just don't know better than to insult someone for no reason at all.
  • If the unsigned preceding comment makes its author feel better, sure, he can ventilate all he likes. If he regards what I said as a personal "insult", he's the one with the problem. Now, let's see if we can get the whole article up to scratch. Tony (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar and fluff problems:

    "Originally powered by gasoline engines for surface running, it was discovered during her sea trials throughout 1909 and 1910 that these engines were found to be incapable of reaching the submarine's contracted speed and posed a risk of poisoning the ship's crew." ->

    "Originally powered by gasoline engines for surface running, sea trials throughout 1909 and 1910 showed these engines to be incapable of reaching the submarine's contracted speed and to pose a risk of poisoning the crew."

  • Done
  • "Despite these criticisms, tests of her design provided information which the Navy used to construct subsequent submarines." -> "Despite these criticisms, design tests provided information the Navy used to improve submarine construction." (That's some guesswork by me.)
  • Done
  • "in order to". No.
  • Fixed
  • "but was at Pola at the end of the war"—the "but" means the training role was no longer at Pola? Bit hard to work it out.
  • Sources are uncertain if she was still in a training role after her re-location to Pola. Austria-Hungary was already starting to collapse by October, so while she may officially have been listed as a training vessel, it's probable that she was no longer actually conducting training operations. I'd prefer to avoid pure speculation however. All we know for certain is that she was relocated to Pola in the final months of the war.
  • "to avoid having to hand its ships over"—why not "to avoid handing its ships over"?
  • Done
  • "Following the Armistice of Villa Giusti in November 1918 however, U-1 was seized by Italian forces and subsequently granted to the Kingdom of Italy under the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1920. Italy chose to scrap the submarine, and she was broken up at Pola later that same year without ever having sunk or damaged any vessels during her career."—The "however" needs a prior comma, but using it in afterthought position is very unusual. Why do we need it at all? "... which was broken up at Pola ...".
  • Change made

Glancing further down, I see lots of things to fix. Needs a thorough audit. Tony (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Later comment: I think the practice of nominating and then vanishing should be discouraged. This has occupied a place on the list for five days without nominator activity. Could it be removed, please? Tony (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you took a look at the article activity, you’d see I am addressing your points. I’d appreciate it if you’d operate a bit more in good faith.—White Shadows Let’s Talk 12:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, like your good faith, on disply above? I hope I do better than that. Tony (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling the lead image rather than used fixed pixel size

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

G'day, I had a look at this over the past couple of days while travelling. I had tired eyes from that, so apologies if I've missed anything. Thanks for you efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the infobox: late 1914–early 1915 -- > "Late 1914 – early 1915" (spaces and caps)
  • the image in the infobox appears to lack alt text -- for consistency with the other images, I'd suggest adding it in;
  • preferring to instead observe other navies experiment with the relatively new type of ship.[2] In early 1904, after allowing the navies of other countries to pioneer submarine developments, Constructor General -- there is a little repetition here. I think this might work better: "...preferring to allow other countries to pioneer the relatively new type of vessel.[2] In early 1904, Constructor General..."
  • draught --> "draft" (the article appears to use US English variation, I think)
  • These including --> "included"
  • After observing the MTK design submitted in early 1905... --> "After reviewing the MTK design submitted in early 1905
  • in the Design section, Although --> not sure about this construction, grammatically speaking. Being experimental isn't a juxtaposition with being the first submarines in the Navy. I would suggest mentioning the designations of U-1 and U-2 in the last sentence of the Background section, then would reduce the first sentence of the Design section as follows: "Intended as an experimental design when ordered, both U-1 and U-2 would prove to be a disappointment. U-1 and..."
  • Not sure about the value of including the point about Lake praising the boats, and the block quote from the designer, to be honest
  • ships -- or "boats"? Not sure, to be honest. I am not a sailor myself, but I have spent a little time on board naval vessels, and at least in the RAN, it seems submarines are usually called "boats" not "ships". Certainly only a minor point, and I'm am happy for you to ignore it if you disagree
  • U-1 was constructed in line with Austro-Hungarian naval policy at the time, which stressed coastal defense and patrolling of the Adriatic Sea --> "U-1 was constructed in line with Austro-Hungarian naval strategy at the time, which focused upon coastal defense and patrol operations in the Adriatic Sea"?
  • Pola Navy Yard (German: Seearsenal) in Pola.[18][15][4] -- suggest ordering the refs so they are in numerical order
  • Because of the problems, the Austro-Hungarian Navy considered the engines to be unsuitable for wartime use and paid only for the hulls and armament of U-1. --> "Because of this, the Navy deemed the engines unsuitable for wartime use and only paid for the vessel's hulls and armament."?
  • In order to correct this problem, the --> "To correct this, the"
  • For underwater steering, her design featured four pairs of diving planes --> " For underwater steering, there were four pairs of diving planes."
  • By December 1912, the Austro-Hungarian Navy... Is this sentence really necessary to this article?
  • The outbreak of World War I found U-1 in drydock --> "At the outbreak of World War I, U-1 was in a drydock..."
  • It would not be until 1920 that the final distribution of the ships was settled among the Allied powers under the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye --> "The final distribution of the ships among the Allied powers was settled under the terms of the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye in 1920"?
  • On 29 October the --> probably needs an introductory comma
  • lacked the men and officers to hold the fleet as most sailors --> "lacked the crews needed to hold the fleet as most sailors "?
  • Due to the training and reconnaissance missions she engaged in throughout the war, U-1 did not sink or damage any ships during her career --> "Due to only being assigned training and reconnaissance missions throughout the war, U-1 did not sink or damage any ships during her career"
  • Citation 1: should have endashes before and after Kaiserliche Marine;
  • Citation 23: Vego 1996, pp. 144-145, 153 --> should have an endash;
  • in the References, there is inconsistency in how you present states, e.g compare Annapolis, MD v. Annapolis, Maryland
  • in the References, move the link for Annapolis and Naval Institute Press to the first mention
  • this needs a citation: Lake's design also called for two retractable wheels that, in theory, could allow travel over the seabed. The design also placed the diving tanks above the waterline of the cylindrical hull, which necessitated a heavy ballast keel for vertical stability. The location of the diving tanks also necessitated flooding to be done by pumps.
  • in terms of sourcing, most seemed ok to me on face value, but I wasn't really sure about whether "Mushroom Models" would be considered a high quality publisher. Can you tell us something about its reputation, or if there are any reviews of their work etc?
  • same same for "Arbeitsgemeinschaft fu¨r O¨sterreichische Marinegeschichte", publisher of Marine—Gestern, Heute?

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/SM_U-1_(Austria-Hungary)/archive1&oldid=867944378"