# Talk:German submarine U-42 (1939)

Do you know how many AA guns there were? Diannaa TALK 01:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
In the info box it says "likely to be"; I am taking it out under the assumption you have an answer and a cite. Diannaa TALK 01:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I do, It's in the existing citaiton.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
How many guns? Just add it to the article when you know. Diannaa TALK 02:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
U-43 passed without this info, BTW, so I guess it is OK without the info :).  Sorry if the above post seemed a little pushy.  I was just impatient for an answer Diannaa TALK 01:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No prob.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The text seems to alternate between U-42 and U-44.  It doesn't seem to be vandalism so is this just an editing error or did I not read it carefully enough and it was renamed? 
Oh, and one mention of U-41 too, in the opening section.  I originally took that as a reference to an earlier boat but think it might be another mistake? sjwk (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. A mysterious stranger has corrected all these errors Diannaa TALK 19:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:German submarine U-42 (1939)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 18:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have reviewed this article. It is well written and presents the (sparse) information clearly. I added a few links to orient myself as well as for others who may not be completely familiar with a war that happened before they were born. Well, referenced; they check out. I can only wish there were a map, such as appears in one of the references, showing where this submarine went.
Xtzou (Talk) 18:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:  Clear and concise writing

B. MoS compliance:  Complies with the basic MoS

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:  Sets the context

B. Focused: } Remains focused on topic

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass! 

Nice little article!  Xtzou (Talk) 19:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)