# Talk:SM U-41 (Austria-Hungary)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SM U-41 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


### Notes on article
Overall, pretty good article, although some minor issues are present.
Could this sentence be expanded upon: "During a short service career marred by repeated engine breakdowns, U-41 sank one ship of 4,604 GRT."?
I changed the {{GRT}} template to have the full wording rather than just the wikilinked abbreviation. Without going into too much detail in the lead, what more should this say? — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the name of the ship it sank could be added? ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Added. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps change "After these steps alleviated their most urgent needs," to something along the lines of "Once these steps had alleviated their most urgent needs."
Not a problems. Changed. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"purchased the plans fromAG Weser of Bremen." Who/What is AG Weser?
one of the two German shipyards building Type UB II submarines. Noted and referenced in the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"Although there is no specific notation of a range for U-41 in Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships" Why would that have any bearing on knowing its range?
It's a non-OR-ish way to give an estimate for the range. In all likelihood, the range for this submarine was the same as the German type upon which it is based. But without a specific reference giving the range of this submarine, to say that is making an OR judgement on my part. From past GACs and FACs, this sort of wording has proven to be acceptable. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"Linenschiffleutnant" What's that?
Aha. The reason I couldn't find a wikilink for it was that I had spelled it wrong. It's Linienschiffsleutnant and is now linked in the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
"underwent more extensive repairs" to what?
Regrettably the source did not elaborate. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the last section really necessary, since only one ship was sunk?
I included it for consistency with articles for sister ships in the class. Valid point, though, and, removed. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I believe I have addressed most of your concerns and have interspersed replies to your specific points above. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do to ensure this article meets the GA criteria. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


### Review by ErikTheBikeMan
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Per above notes. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
B. MoS compliance: 

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

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
One note: It is very difficult to distinguish the difference between the Notes and References. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
C. No original research: 

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

B. Focused: 
In fact, it is a bit too focused. It doesn't explain some details well enough. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
Perhaps the article is too young to truly tell yet, but I don't think this is a very controversial topic. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Are there images? 
No images, but I highly doubt there actually is a possibility to get any. I will not consider this criteria in the final pass/fail. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
B. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Irrelevant. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
C. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Irrelevant. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Placing on hold for seven days for improvements to be made. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Passed. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


### See Also
An essay on the review process