# Talk:U-5-class submarine

This review is transcluded from Talk:U-5 class submarine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Good job on this article so far. However, I feel that the main weakness of this page is that it is quite short. For one, I feel that the lead could be expanded, as with many of the other sections. Notify me when you are finished and I will pass the article. By the way, good references. I read it on Google Books, and it matches perfectly. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line 16:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your quick response in reviewing this article, I can't help but wonder if your review of the article has been very thorough, since you placed it on hold some 61 minutes after I nominated it. As far as the length of the article, yes, it is short because there's not a whole lot of information out there about this class of submarine (or Austro-Hungarian submarines in general, for that matter). Because of that fact, it is unlikely that this article would ever make it to Featured Article status, but, in any case, there does not seem to be minimum length for a GA, based on my reading of the Good Article criteria.
I would like to ask you to make a more considered review against the Good Article criteria or release the article from hold an allow another editor to review it. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I will willingly review this article for GAN if Redmark will release it for me to review. I looked through the article and it seems quite interesting; a few changes and it can certainly be GA class! Skinny87 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I disagree a bit. While it might be able to be expanded somewhere, there were only three subs built of this class (and its not like they were around for very long), so there isn't going to be a lot of information on them. —Ed 17 (talk)— 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
About the quick review: I just happened to look on the Military History list, and yours was one of two that had not been placed on hold. I hadn't had even reviewed a GA for a few months. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ  Drop me a line 14:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Redmark has allowed me to take over the review, so I'll get one up in a day or so (uni studies first!)Skinny87 (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

copied from Talk:U-5 class submarine

[Note: I don't want to blank the original review page due to the comments on it, so I'll place my review below]
Hi!  I will be reviewing this article for GAN, and should have the full review up soon. Skinny87 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Please expand the lead to two full paragraphs - they need bulking up a bit; adding what victories each sub achieved would be a good idea
Will go through and rework the lead. Will note here when that is done.
I went through and reworked the lead. It's not much longer than it was but I believe it now better summarizes the article. I did add a note about the number of ships sunk, captured and damaged into the lead, but I'm not so sure that the lead needs to be overburdened with names and dates  of the ships sunk. How does the revised lead work now? — Bellhalla (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
'The U-5 class was a class of three submarines or U-boats of the Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: Kaiserliche und Königliche Kriegsmarine or K.u.K. Kriegsmarine) before and during World War I.' - I realize what you're saying here, but needs clarifying - ie, was a class 'that operated before and during World War I'
Fxed.
'The first two boats, U-5 and U-6, were ordered by the Austro-Hungarian Navy for evaluation and were partially assembled in the United States, shipped to Fiume, and completed by Whitehead's, which proved problematic.' - Punctuation, and please clarify why it was problematic
Regrettably, the source only says: "The first two boats were partially assembled in the United States and assembled at Whitehead's, which caused a lot of trouble."
'The third boat, built on speculation' - what does this mean? Please clarify
Something created "on speculation" or "on spec" is done so for sale on the open market rather than for a specific customer, like in the film industry with a spec script. There's not a spec submarine or spec ship article to link to, regrettably, so how would you recommend improving the understanding of the sentence? (The article at speculation doesn't seem to be the right fit for this concept.)
'with improvements in the electrical and mechanical systems' - what were these improvements? Any details available?
As with the 'problematic' statement above, there were no details provided as to what the improvements were.
'SS 3 was launched in March 1911 and was offered to the Austro-Hungarian Navy but because the evaluation of the first two boats was still underway, they declined.' - comma after Navy, please
Fixed
'before a second offer to the Austro-Hungarian Navy was also rejected' - 'before the Austro-Hungarian Navy rejected an offer for the second time.'
Changed
'After the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, Austria-Hungary purchased the unsold submarine and provisionally commissioned her as U-7.[1]' - doesn't really clarify that (presumably) AH purchased the submarine due to the war beginning. Please clarify either way.
Made clear motivations with citation.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
'By August 1914, however, she had been commissioned as U-12' - do we know why?
Not sure I get what you're asking. Why 12 rather than 7? There was a U-7 class of five boats (which were to be U-7 through U-11) being built in Germany. At the time, 12 was the next unclaimed number.
'All three boats of the U-5 class took part in combat patrols' - when? where? for how long?
Virtually all of A-H submarine activities were in the Adriatic because of limited range of their subs, the location of their national interests, and geography. When, where, and how many patrols by these three boats are not known.
'Of the three, U-6 was the least successful, sinking a single ship of 756 gross register tons (GRT);' - what was this ship named? where was it sunk?
The "War activities" section is intended to be a overall summary of the war activities of each of the class U-boats. The specific ship sunk is mentioned in the "SM U-6" section. Do you think it should be repeated here?
'U-5 was the most successful, sinking four ships with of a combined 21,604 GRT,[4] including the French armoured cruiser Léon Gambetta.' - what were these vessels? civilian or military? when and where was the Gambetta sunk?
'U-12 damaged, but did not sink, the largest ship torpedoed by any of the U-5 class when she hit the French battleship Jean Bart on 21 December 1914' - You claim U-6 was the least successful, but this seems to be OR according to this - the Jean Bart wasn't even sunk by U-12. Did U-12 attack and sink any other ships? If not, then surely it is the least successful?
U-12 sank a 1,065 GRT—larger than U-6's only ship sunk—ship in addition to damaging Jean Bart.
'During World War I, U-5 sank four ships totaling 21,604 GRT under the commands of Georg Ritter von Trapp (April–October 1915) and Friedrich Schlosser (November 1915 – July 1917).' - reword please, as it seems like the ships sunk were commanded by these men, not the sub itself.
Reworded.
'U-5 hit a mine and sank on 16 May 1917' - where, and whose mine was it?
No word on whose it was. My assumption would be a friendly mine since they were able to raise it and repair it, but that would only be an assumption on my part.
'Two months later, U-6 became tangled in submarine nets laid as a part of the Otranto Barrage and was scuttled by her crew on 13 May 1916.[1]' - did all of the crew survive?
Sources do not say.
'On 21 December 1914, U-12 torpedoed and damaged Jean Bart. In March 1915, she captured six Montenegrin ships under prize rules.' - Please add more detail. Where was she when she torpedoes Jean Bart. And how did she capture six ships - was it simultaneously or individually? On the same day or spread over the month?
As much detail is available was added for both Jean Bart and the six Montenegrin ships, which were captured on two separate days; two the first day and four nine days later
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Per above questions
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

An interesting article, but the issues raised above will need to be addressed to my satisfaction before I can pass the article. Skinny87 (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful review. I believe I've addressed most of your concerns, but am still working on the lead of the article. My responses to individual items are interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, you've covered all my points, I'll put this as at once! Well done! Skinny87 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

end copy