Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/HMS Sportsman

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

---

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

HMS Sportsman

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): L293D (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Sportsman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Royal Navy Third-batch S-class submarine built during World War II. Sank a French transport, some Italian and Greek ships. Unfortunately also sank the POW transport SS Petrella. The boat was then lent to the French navy in 1952, but sank after eleven weeks from a diving accident. The article just passed GA, and I am wondering how well it would do at ACR. Thanks in advance for comments and suggestions! L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by PM

I am reluctantly opposing this nomination due to the extensive use of uboat.net as a source. Over half of all citations are from uboat.net, which it claims is based on primary sources from the British National Archives. While I passed it at GAN, I don't think it meets criteria A1., in that it needs "high quality" sources, which I don't believe uboat.net is, especially when it is essentially self-published and the authors are enthusiasts not published experts in the field. The uboat.net page is relied upon for almost all of the Construction and career section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

G'day, this article has clearly had a lot of hard work put into it, but I would encourage you to address PM's point above before the review process goes too far. As PM says, many of the paragraphs are solely sourced to Uboat.net. Where possible, I think it would be best to use additional sources for these paragraphs to corroborate the information. That said, once this has been addressed, I think that the article could achieve A-class standard. As such, I have a few comments/suggestions about other areas: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• ext links work (no action required)
• no dab or duplicate links (no action required)
• suggest adding alt text to the images: [1]
• suggest adding author and accessdate information for Citation # 7
• 1952-09-26: adjust date formation for consistency, i.e. "26 September 1952"
• The world's Merchant Fleets, 1939: adjust to title case caps --> "The World's Merchant Fleets, 1939"
• Chatham publishing --> "Chatham Publishing"
• in the lead, I suggest maybe splitting the first paragraph as it seems quite long compared to the very short second paragraph
• in the lead, where she underwent additional training for operations in the far east --> "where her crew underwent additional training for operations in the Far East" or "where she participated in additional training exercises to prepare for operations in the Far East"
• March 11 --> "11 March" for consistency of style
• but its cable connecting it to the boat was broken --> "but the cable connecting it to the boat was broken"
• I couldn't see where in citation 7 it supports the assertion that the ship was "clearly marked" - I think stronger sourcing is required here.
  • Rohwer says that POW was painted on the sides of the ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for adding that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• in reference to the paragraph about the Petrella sinking I am also a bit concerned that the wording here is a bit too close to the source, per this: [2] and [3] (suggest rewording this paragraph and a few other clauses as identified in the links to avoid close paraphrasing)
  • I reworded quite a bit and got it down to 35%.
    • I had a go at reducing this a little further. Please check you are happy with my edits. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• was there any disciplinary action taken as a result of sinking the Petrella, or any explanation as to why it was attacked if it was clearly marked?
  • Not that I've been able to find. They may not have known about it until after the war.
• an additional image in the body of the article, if available, would be a good addition
  • It would, if I could find a legal image to add. In general, I cannot find any other source for info like the boat's movements, etc., though I can mostly confirm the sinkings, though exact dates are sometimes iffy, but not the method.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Ack, no worries, about the images. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review - image is correctly licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.