Talk:SM UB-50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSM UB-50 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 22, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
September 25, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 7, 2010.
Current status: Good article

GA Comments[edit]

I watch WP:GAN so I was surprised to see this nominated- I remember reading it when it was at DYK. Whoever reviews this needs to seriously pour over Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/German Type UB I submarine/archive1 because this article is incredibly dependent on one source, a source that questions of caused a recent FAC to fail. Of 49 citations, 48 are to Uboat.net; that would greatly concern me about any source, but especially given this source's history at FAC. Courcelles 13:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's only from one user, but see User:The ed17/Archives/32#Uboat.ent. Buggie111 (talk) 13:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damning with faint praise. "Yes, the site (in my opinion) is reliable, but it does not meet the high-quality criterion of FA." Why would we write articles, and stamp our cross of approval on them, when we know the referencing would need a complete redo to go to the next level? Actually, though I tend to go the other way and call it unreliable, I was much more alarmed to see—save one—every citation in an article to it. Regarding the GA criteria, you can't represent "views fairly" if you've only presented one source's view, no matter the topic. I'm not going to take the review, so feel free to ignore me, but I felt whoever ultimately does need to read the recent developments regarding Uboat.net. Courcelles 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point. Single source article might have bias in them, so I'll try and rework this boy. I'm not sure how far I'm going to get before surrendering myself to fate, but I'll try and plow through as many non-Uboat.net refs as I can. I kind of want to ask NSD if he would postpone the review. Buggie111 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uboat.net is far from "Unreliable" but you make a strong point in that 98% of the citations are from the site. We need some diversity guys!--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 01:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick suggestion[edit]

Sorry, I don't have time to do the GA review, but I have one suggestion. In the References list (Citation # 48) there are two sources (Burt and Conway's) using the short citation style but don't include the full bibliographic details anywhere. These details should be added and my suggestion would be to use a Notes and a References section, whereby the Notes section uses short citations and References provides the full details. An example is included in WP:LAYOUT. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:SM UB-50/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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:

Comments[edit]

  1. The lede needs expanding one paragraph is way to short
    I'll start work on that. Buggie111 (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Buggie111 (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is a disamb link to Tyne
     Done by Buggie111 (talk · contribs). ~NerdyScienceDude 03:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Some citation and clarify tags need attention
    Mostly done, the one that you placed in the note only seems citeable by a machine translation, and I don't think you put refs in notes. Buggie111 (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. She sank more ships than 14 of the top 20 U-boats of World War II.[2] is not supported by the reference
    It requieres the user to look at the tonnage sunk by the WWII ships and compare to UB-50. I'll remove it.Buggie111 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In the inf box 1 × 88 mm or 105 mm deck gun needs a cite as only the 88mm is cited in the article
    Done. Buggie111 (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Her engines enabled her to travel at 13.5 knots (25.0 km/h; 15.5 mph) when surfaced and 7.5 knots (13.9 km/h; 8.6 mph) when submerged.[1] is not supported by the reference
    Done. Buggie111 (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It sank after a torpedo stopped her, allowing her to sink with no casualties.[4] the ref does not say she was torpedoed just stopped and sunk so its could have been sunk by gunfire
    Done. Buggie111 (talk) 14:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In the second patrol section - Three days after that, the Margram Abbey, a 4,367 long tons (4,437 t) British steamer carrying, is there a missing word here carrying what ?
     Done by Buggie111 (talk · contribs). ~NerdyScienceDude 03:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. In the seventh patrol section is states On 9 November 1918, two days before the armistice and the surrender of the U-boat biut the lede claims she surrendered on 16 January 1919 so clarification required
    Fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, 1906-1921 needs added to a bibliography
    Will do. Buggie111 (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Buggie111 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Sorry one more just seen Burt also needs adding to the bibliograophy


I share previous stated concerns about only one source Uboat.net. but understand that its been passed as reliable. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crap! Double tasking! I'll get to the more simpler stuff right now (Tyne, etc) Buggie111 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Maybe I missed something, but should there not be dates given for her various cruises? --Cosal (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SM_UB-50&oldid=1205027623"