# Talk:SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary)

I have begun a GA review, which can be found here. Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The article is now a Good Article. Congragulations, and good work. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
The article so far is pretty good. I have a few small comments, before I pass it.

The wording in a few sentences might be reviewed. An example would be "There is no record of how long it took for UB-15's sections to be assembled..." Is there no record, or was there a record that was lost or is now inaccessible? I'd imagine records were kept. However, from that sentence, all those thoughts were sprung, which may or may not be a good thing. My suggestion would be "A similar ship was built in two weeks," or something to that effect. I'd read through the article a few times and try to clarify what may be a confusing sentence.
How about "There is no known surviving (italics are mine) record of how long it took for UB-15's sections to be assembled. However, a similar ship (UB-3) was built in two weeks. I think that that addresses the issue nicely.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That works. Implement the sentence how you see fit, and I'll take a look. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've implemented the sentense. You can go ahead and take a look.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Is a reference after every commander necessary, or is it possible to lay the source right after the Commander: preface, considering they are all from the same source?
I removed the refs from all te commanders (and the one for victories) and added one ref on the top of the section entitled  Service record as U-11. Hope that this is a good alternative.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Works well, thanks. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Is a better picture possible? I understand that with submarines they may not be, but it would be nice to see more than just the top of the ship. If it is not possible, that's not a problem.
Sadly, there is no known image of SM U-11 other than this one. And this one is even copyrighted! Sorry.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
That's what I thought, okay. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I fixed a few typos I saw quickly, but I'd run through and make sure that any grammatical or spelling errors are gone. I didn't see any through my read through, but it never hurts to double check.
Malleus has fixed the rest of the spelling mistakes. Done.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be useful to add the mph as well as the kmph, considering that both knots and kilometers would be foreign to a large portion of readers.
I'm not the best at these things. So can you point out exactly where this is mentioned and I'll get back to you on this as soon as I have found out how to fix it?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
"U-11 was capable of up to 6.5 knots (12.0 km/h) while surfaced and 5.5 knots (10.2 km/h)..." Hope this answers your question. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll go and convert the number into miles.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Converted and done.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
The second note might be more useful in the infobox, where the issue of the transfer and the date comes up first.
I've moved the note into the infobox.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
"1,500 nautical miles (2,800 km) @ 5 kn (9.3 km/h) surfaced" - Not being common with ship articles, is the @ symbol commonly used like this in this context?
No. I've replaced the @ with "at".--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
If you can address the concerns, or if I am in error, than the article will pass. Thanks for an interesting read. 
Reviewer: Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to comment and say that I have read your concerns. I'll get to all of them hopefully by the end of the day. Thanks!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
With the exeption of conversion(s), I've fixed all of these small issues that you mentioned.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)