Talk:German submarine U-853/GA1

GA on hold

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA at the moment. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. These are just preliminary issues, this article has a lot of problems and is a substantial way from GA. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is of a poor standard: below are some problems, although this article needs quite a lot of work in all areas

• The lead: The lead should properly introduced the subject by providing an overview of what the topic is and the notable points of it. It should not provide information not seen elsewhere in the article.
• Somewhat bizarre comma usage throughout the article makes it very hard to read. (e.g. "The planes were able to return to their carrier, but after recovery, one was deemed a total loss and was jettisoned") This needs to be addressed whereever it occurs.
• Delink all dates per changes to the MOS.
• "apparently failed to sink any targets during the first weeks of her patrol." - apparently? Did she sink any or not?

• As the article explains, one of the targets sunk was not discovered to have been sunk by the sub until 2001. It is the nature of subs that their operations are secret. Ships blow up, and nobody is sure why. Jehochman ^Talk 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that is just not true. A commission after the war assessed and attributed causes to the loss of all ships based on the records of both sides where avaliable. I have a book (unfirtunately not to hand) that lists every U-boat and every ship that each one sank. Sometimes the findings of this committee have been reassessed, but information is always avaliable on what was sunk when (even if it is sometimes subject to change).--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I reworded that section carefully. We are sure U-853 sank two ships. They are listed, but I need more details for Black Point.Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• "either did not receive, or less likely, chose to ignore that order" - which is it and why the uncertainty?

• We'll never know, because all hands on board died. Nobody is left to explain why they ignored the order. What is said here accurately reflects the source. Jehochman ^Talk 18:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• In that case, state in the article who considers it to be less likely.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Several very short paragraphs, which have to be merged into surrounding sections.
• Ship articles need infoboxes. Ships are complex things and an infobox helps unfamiliar users get an understanding of the vessel and its capabilities.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Far more needed on what class of submarine U853 was; what were the distinguishing features of this class; provide details of the ship's construction and development; give context regarding the situation under which the submarine entered service (i.e. at what stage was the battle of the Atlantic) etc.
• "She now turned her attentions to U-853." - How did she know which boat she was hunting? More context is needed regarding this mission.
• More on the sinking of Eagle 56, this is an interesting part of the subs history and there is little context - casualties, time of the attack, no. of torpedoes fired.
• Information on all ships sunk by the sumbmarine must be included, in some detail.
• How did the divers die? In what circumstances?

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Thank you very much for the detailed review. I will work on it. Sorry the deficiencies; I have not too much experience with ship articles. Jehochman ^Talk 18:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise, we all have to gain experience before we can write articles to the highest standard. Just to let you know its looking a lot better already. I'd like to see more on the status of the wreck, sources in the first section and perhaps a little more information on her captains (i.e. were they veterans or new commanders? etc). I will doa thorough second review in the next couple of days, but this is well on the way to making GA.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Remaining issues

A huge improvement in the article, well done. I am listing below all remaining issues and once these have been addressed this article will pass GAN.

• "The U-boat was known to them as der Seiltänzer ("the Tightrope Walker")". Can this be sourced please
• "assigned to weather-watching duty" Can you explain very briefly what this entails (or link to a relevant article if one exists)?

• "German intelligence believed that weather conditions could be" perhaps it would be better to add "weather conditions in the Atlantic could be"?

• Done. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, the escort carrier USS Croatan (CVE-14)" - lose the "meanwhile".
• "She began searching for U-853. The U-boat proved so elusive" - Still not clear how Croatan knew there was another U-boat to hunt. It might also be better to say "U-853 proved so elusive" rather than the awkward construction above.
• "The three weeks of being hunted placed an enormous strain on U-853's crew." - You haven't mentioned three weeks, only one attack. This needs to be clarified either above when discussing to Croatan or at this point when discussing the strain the crew were under. It depends whether the three weeks cam before, after or surrounding the attack.
• "Germany hoped to obtain more favorable surrender terms by pressuring the United States." - This is a slightly controversial statement historically, and I don't think the article really needs it. I suggest it is removed, but if it stays it definately needs a source. It is a shame there is no article for Operation Seewolf.
• Make sure that all references follow directly on from the punctuation so that there is no space between them.

Still a few of these, particulalry in the Wreck section.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I searched with a text editor and fixed all three occurences. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Once these are dealt with I will be happy to pass this article as a GA, well done. The writing standard is not brilliant and I recommend finding a copyeditor to look over it for you and there are some suggestions above that might be useful in expanding the article but neither of these issues will hold up the GA nomination further.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think these issues are now resolved. Perhaps I can get User:Bishonen to copy edit this article, independently of whether this makes GA. Jehochman ^Talk 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, I am now happy to pass this article as GA. Well done, you have worked very hard at this since the review started and the article has improved immensely, hopefully my pointers will help with future submarine articles too (which I'd be happy to go over if you let me know when they are ready). I would not recommend going to FAC with this yet however. The prose still needs significant work, at the moment I would only rate it as a 5/10 and the article requires at least one thorough copyedit and several other improvements before it is ready for that status. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)