# Talk:I-351-class submarine

A couple of things. Are her diesels 3700hp apiece, or for both combined? And Blair's Silent Victory makes no mention of I-351, let alone her being sunk by Bluefish, & you can bet, if Forbes had done it, Blair would say so; rather, he gives Forbes a zero (p.976). I'm betting JANAC got it wrong again.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  05:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Both diesels combined are 3700 hp. I think I-351 was indeed sunk by the the Bluefish, here is a reliable source which confirms it:  [1].  dr. Loosmark  20:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sad to say, but this doesn't actually say anything about her fate, just "one completed". Stille (p.37) does say "torpedoed by U.S. submarine", but doesn't name her, I suspect based on JANAC, which attributed sinkings at times to subs which were, in fact, nowhere around.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, somehow I copied the wrong link, here is the correct one [2].  Dr. Loosmark  22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thx. I do find it very strange Blair doesn't mention it, when he does every other I-boat the Sub Force sank. I-351 would be quite a coup... And I'd be very interested in knowing if combinedfleet isn't relying on JANAC.   TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  23:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you can try asking about the source in the forum [3], the section "TROM & Posts".  Dr. Loosmark  23:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Will give that a try. Thx.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:I-351-class submarine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 18:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Just a few spots of unclear writing.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Design:
Less than felicitous phrasing "This class of submarines was ordered under the 5th..." perhaps "The I-351 submarine class..."?
"...as well as a 600-shaft-horsepower (447 kW) electric motors." Subject-verb agreement here - is is "a motor" or more than one motor?
"They had a range of 13,000 nmi (24,000 km; 15,000 mi) at 14 knots..." need to type out the full word on first usage of an abbreviation (nmi)
"...but they were unavailable when the submarines were under construction..." I think you mean "these" in place of "they"
"and either sixty 550-pound (250 kg) bombs or 30 bombs and 15 aircraft torpedoes." Needs to be "60" to fit with the other numbers written with numerals.
Fixed all of the above, but the last point is correct as written. See WP:Numbers#Numbers_as_figures_or_words.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Construction:
"heavy bombers on 22 July." I assume 1945? You know what they say "assume makes an ass out of you and me"...
I used 1945 in the previous sentence. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Your usual good work. Just a couple of spots where the writing could use a bit of polish. I took the liberty of doing a few small copyedits myself, where I could be sure that I wouldn't mess up things.
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. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks fine. Passing now. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)