# Talk:German submarine U-301

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on German submarine U-301. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051030201214/http://www.ubootwaffe.net:80/ops/boat.cgi?boat=301 to http://www.ubootwaffe.net/ops/boat.cgi?boat=301
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:German submarine U-301/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving a look. —Ed!(talk) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
It is reasonably well written:
No problem with dab links, dup links or external links. As in the other article, copyvio tool returns yellow here. Unless there's some significant different between this one and U-335, I would think you can rewrite the design section and just place it in both articles and note any substantial difference.
Rewritten, only a 4.8% match now. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Source Spotcheck Refs 2, 3 and 4 all back up info cited in the article.
It is broad in its coverage:
Not Yet
Ref 1 is returning a Harv error
Fixed by someone else. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
As in the other article, infobox mentions mines but not in the prose. And crew complement needs to be added to the infobox.
Added. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The "Wolfpacks" section can be merged into 1st Patrol, since they essentially contain the same material. What is a wolf pack and what did they do during these missions? These details can expand this section as well.
Done, merged. There's a link to Wolfpack (naval tactic), which I feel is sufficient. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Were any ships sighted on the patrols? Any unsuccessful targets that could be mentioned?
Unfortunately, I don't have access to much info about unsuccesful sightings, but I've added what I could in the first patrol. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
This book, also mentioned in the other review, has a few mentions of U-301 and might be good addition for U-boat strategy at the time to explain how she was employed as well as a few extra details on the loss: [1]
Added some content from the book. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Was the wreck ever located?
Very probably not, it would be mentioned at u-boat.net. But I've done a search and haven't found anything. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass Image tagged PD where appropriate.
Other:
On Hold Pending a few suggestions for expansion. —Ed!(talk) 17:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ed!: see if my changes are satisfactory. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Holding pending the outcome of this discussion about use of uboat.net. —Ed!(talk) 15:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ed!: what do you think now? The result of the discussion as I see it is that uboat.net shouldn't be used as only source, and I've added as many book sources as I find. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@L293D: This is sufficient, IMO. If someone has a challenge about a specific point or fact in the article cited to uboat.net, they can bring it up on the talk page, with these new sources I feel you've largely double-refed anything major. Last request; if you could standardize the footnotes in  {{sfn}} and {{cite web}} templates as appropriate, currently they're in a mix of formats. —Ed!(talk) 20:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Done, sorry for the delay. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Pass With all this said and done, I think the article passes GA now. Well done! —Ed!(talk) 01:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)