I am nominating this for featured article because in the past few months, Myself and to a lesser extent, Ceranthor have been improving this article from the state that it was left in once User:Bellhalla left Wikipedia back in December of last year. When I found this article, no one was working on it but it remained in very good shape. I decided to further work on it by taking it through a Peer Review and promoting the remaining U-boats from this class to GA status, thus making this article the centerpiece of a Good Topic. Ceranthor may make a few passing comments and help out here and there on the FAC but he has declined my offer to have him co-nom this FAC with me. As for the article itself, the German Type UB I submarines were a series of very small U-boats that three of the four Central powers operated in the First World War. Both German, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria used them and it was a Type UB I submarine that became Bulgaria's first true U-boat. These small vessels patrolled the coast of Belgium, France and the Netherlands as part of the Flanders Flotilla, the Adriatic sea, The Baltic sea as part of the Baltic Flotilla, and the area around Ottoman Turkey as part of the Constantinople Flotilla. Any comments would be much appreciated. This is my first true FAC that I myself am undergoing. I was a co-nom in the FAC for the Austro-Hungarian Battleship SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand yet it failed. This time around, I will be addressing most of the comments and I hope to promote this article to FA status.White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a RS as it is just text from the "Austro-Hungarian Warships In Photographs, Vol. 2. 1896-1918". One of the authors of the book wrote this so yes permission is given based on that fact!--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 17:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced that hosting it there is reliable though. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The clarification needed tag should be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to clarify, links (disambiguation and external) check out. ceranthor 19:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: best of luck with your first solo FAC, WS, I'll keep it watchlisted and jump in if it looks like I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I feel my concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Comments - a neat article, and I wish you luck in getting it to FA status. Below are some suggestions/questions for further improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wording about displacement in the lead is unclear. Based on the infobox alone, I would assume that 127 tonnes at the surface and increases to a total of 142 tonnes when completely submerged. However, wording in the lead suggests that displacement varies due to "small size variations between boats". Which interpretation is correct? Can you change the wording/infobox to erase potential confusion?
Mostly. I'm not sure of the protocol for the "translations": must you link German language every time you translate the name of something into German? If no rule (MoS or unwritten) mandates it, I would recommend paring those links. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The group is sometimes known as the UB-1 class after SM UB-1, the class leader. In the Austro-Hungarian Navy, it was called the U-10 class." - the group or the class leader was called the U-10? I assume the former, but in that case it would seem logical to have the term bolded. Also, in a later note you say that the Austro-Hungarian Navy called it the "U-10-class" - which is correct?
Logically, it seems that "The group known as the UB-1 class" was known in Austria-Hungary as the "U-10 class". Grammatically, however, the sentence would indicate that "SM UB-1, the class leader" was known in Austria-Hungary as the "U-10 class". If the former is correct (as I suspect it is): since "UB-1 class" is bolded, then "U-10 class" would logically also be bolded. As for the final comment, the later note includes a hyphen not present in the phrase quoted here. Hope that clarifies my comment. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The German Imperial Navy ordered an additional pair later to replace two boats sold to Austria-Hungary, which ordered a further three in April 1915" - wording is slightly awkward. Also, do you have a date for the German additional order?
"boats from the two manufacturers" - you have not yet mentioned two manufacturers, so this statement is somewhat confusing. The entire sentence could be reworded and potentially split into two for clarity
"via" is common enough in English that it need not be italicized
Given the slightly different designs, some of the technical figures should vary slightly between manufacturers (you specifically mention a different displacement when submerged in article text). Which design is reflected in the infobox figures?
Not everything was different between the two and if you look at the infobox, you'll see that what was different is already mentioned. (U-1 to U-whatever) and then the other set of numbers for the other U-boats.--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. The text says that the two "differed slightly in displacement submerged", but only one number is present in the infobox (I think it's for Germaniawerft?)
"Germaniawerft boats seem to have had fewer large vents" - why is this "seem to have had"? Is the design inconsistent even among boats produced by the same manufacturer?
File:SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary).jpg - Dead source. 1915 is a creation date. License depends upon date of author death. Who is the author? When did s/he die?
File:SM UB-2 and SM UB-16 in Flanders.jpg - Purpose as is does not appear to be a significant contribution to our understanding. However, given that the current infobox image has a unsupported license, this would be appropriate re-purposed in the dual roles (NFCC#3A) of primary visual identification and illustration of "One of the minor differences" - assuming no free version exists.
I'm guessing that what you were saying is that while it cannot be used under fair use in it's current state, it can as an infobox image. Right?--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite as simple as that, but I suppose that has the same end result. Because of the unsupported license on File:SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary).jpg, I'm operating under the assumption that free images are not available (and am thus treating that image as non-free). So then we have three non-free images with these purposes: 1) visual identification, 2) visualization of a manufacturing difference and 3) visualization of rail design. I don't believe that the last two pass NFCC#8. However, because visual identification passes, I'm recommending using File:SM UB-2 and SM UB-16 in Flanders.jpg as the visual identification (i.e. removing this) because it will then be fulfilling two purposes, albeit one that's not necessary. Эlcobbolatalk 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the lead image and removed the remaining images in the article text. Are there still any problems with the remaining image?--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, image issues are resolved. Эlcobbolatalk 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sections of SM UB-13 on train.jpg - Decorative (NFCC#8). That "the boats of this class were designed to be shipped by rail in sections" is not something that requires visualization to understand. An image of sections on a rail line only serves to identify the design was successful in that regard (something a reliable source could do), not to illustrate meaningfully aspects of the actual design. Now moot, but image is not low resolution (NFCC#3B).Эlcobbolatalk 20:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. This seems generally OK on first pass, but I think a few things need fixing:
"The process of shipping the submarines by rail involved breaking the submarine down into what was essentially a knock down kit."
"The boats were equipped with compensating tanks designed to flood and offset the loss of the C/06 torpedo's 1,700-pound (770 kg) weight, but this did not always function properly ...".
Randomly butting in here - I'm 99.9% sure Malleus means your tenses don't match. "compensating tanks" is plural, "this" is singular. Same with the "submarines" vs. "the submarine" comment above. Dana boomer (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"During their trials, the Type UB Is were found to be too small and too slow, and had a reputation for being underpowered". They had a reputation for being underpowered during their trials?
Yes, I believe so. However, it's not like the bad reputation was lost once they were put into action.--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 02:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All my issues have been addressed satisfactorily. MalleusFatuorum 17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC) I'm withdrawing my support, see my explanation below. MalleusFatuorum 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There does not appear to be any issues left.--TwilightHelryx 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please resolve the questions about reliable sources raised by Ealdgyth, or ask supporters to explain why they think these sources are reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get to them as soon as I can. I'll also be looking for replacement sources to them.--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything at http://uboat.net/about/crew.htm that speaks to reliability, editorial oversight, and factchecking-- it looks like a home-spun site, but is frequently cited here. Perhaps Ealdgyth has something about this site in her notes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with White Shadows over the reliability of Uboat.net as a source. As Bellhalla has shown, that website is used as a reference by the authors of several printed books. I see no good reason why that source cannot be used in this or any other relevant article. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing that uboat.net complies with WP:SPS (it has not been established that the author is an established expert on the topic); I suggest someone raise this at WP:RSN to get a definitive reading, since the fact that it got by previous FACs is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I'm concerned that standards on Ship articles not slide. We haven't yet gotten an answer on why the published books weren't consulted instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mountain of evidence against you Sandy, Bellhalla's page, the ACR, the FAC. In fact, the ed17 was the one who told me about the site in the first place and told me that it was trustworthy. Several dedicated editors of this topic have told you and provided evidence on this site's reliability and yet you continue to shove OTHERSTUFF down their (and my) throats while claiming that "It is not at all clear to me that this site [Uboat.net] meets the requirements of WP:SPS". I'm getting rather tired of you trying to throw this FAC off track with your position of power in this process and I'm beginning to think about requesting input from the other delegate or the FA director. All of us cannot be dead wrong on this issue and comments like "I'm concerned that standards on Ship articles not slide" really are like spitting in the face of the members of WP:SHIPS and WP:MIL who edit these articles. There is enough sources in Wikipedia alone, much less the books that have cited the website to show that this site does indeed meet WP:RS.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 21:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re which sources are used, the fact that a published book exists is not the same as having that book to hand to check the info -i.e. if you haven't got the book, then you can't use it as a source, whereas the website is accessible online by all. Suppose a book is used as a source, and you don't have that book, then how can you tell if it has been used accurately or not? You can't, can you, but you can easily check the website if it is used. Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Highest quality sources are required for Featured articles, and editors here have yet to establish that the authors of this website are published experts in the field, per WP:SPS-- there seems to be some misunderstanding here of the requirements for high quality sourcing in Featured articles, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:SPS, and the accessibility of a source (online vs. book) is most certainly not how we judge our best sourcing. I've entered an inquiry at WP:RSN, as editors have delayed here for several weeks on doing that. We need independent review of ship articles, but we get ship editors consistently supporting ship articles, with little independent review-- sourcing still needs to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that Ships editors generally support ship articles is because most of the major issues from our perspective have been dealt with at our ACR. I agree that fresh eyes are needed for outside perspectives, but I think that your own perspective may be distorted by the fact we may not comment at length in comparison to outside reviewers. I know that I've certainly delivered some drive-by supports for ship articles, but I reviewed them at our ACR. I reject any imputation that Ships editors automatically support ship articles; if it were otherwise then this discussion would not have begun as it would gotten the requisite number supports from project members. That it hasn't speaks volumes from my POV; you may disagree. I'm not so foolish to claim that our ACR is flawless as the quality of each review depends on the reviewers, but it certainly does eliminate many issues that may commonly arise with articles from projects that don't have an ACR process.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all clear to me that this site meets the requirements of WP:SPS, and the fact that it cleared previous FACs is neither here nor there (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Could we please get some independent views on how this site meets WP:SPS, particularly because so much of the article depends upon it. As SPS says, if the information were reliable, surely better sources would have picked it up; if the author is indeed an "expert" (that hasn't been established), and if his info is reprinted in other books, why aren't those books cited, rather than a dubious website? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I'm going to have to put my foot down on this one. I see no reason to remove Uboat.net as a source to this article and quite frankly, I refuse to do so. If this source leads to the downfall of this FAC, then so be it. The fact that the site is used extensively (while technically falling under OTHERSTUFF) in another FA, SM U-66 is enough proof IMHO that the site has and continues to meet WP:RS.--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 20:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One, standards for sourcing for FAs have risen in the last few years. Two, I suggest that "putting your foot down" isn't the best method of persuading others to see your side of things. There's a perfectly sensible solution, go look up the books that uboat.net uses and use them. I'm not minded to oppose over the sourcing just yet, but a cooperative attitude is definitely helpful in keeping folks from opposing. The fact is that it is a SPS and nothing I'm seeing shows that it's by an expert. I'm glad to be shown wrong on that, but the page Sandy linked to doesn't inspire confidence that the people putting out the site are experts. All over Wiki, standards of sourcing are rising, and while it may mean more work for writers, it's an important and useful thing for the reputation of the encyclopedia as a whole. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me why "German" is in the article name; isn't that redundant (as shown by the first line of the article, which doesn't have that name bolded? See WP:LEAD). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "Type UB I" not hyphenated, but every other use of UB-number of boat is? Also, please review WP:NBSP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I added the dash/space to every mention of "Type UB I" in the text, but not the references.--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've puzzled me as well; I thought SandyG was asking why isn't it "Type UB-1"? I notice as well that at least two of your sources[3][4] don't hyphenate either the type name or the boat names. MalleusFatuorum 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think all you're expected to do is to answer SandyG's question. The reason that the type name (Type UB 1) isn't hyphenated is that it might cause confusion with the submarine UB-1, or some such. MalleusFatuorum 23:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like sources for these or something? Sokol Mentions Medusa in the last chapter of his book and I have another book source for the cruiser.--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy 01:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the subs that survived the war? I'd assume they either became war reparations or went to the breakers (or probably both).
Comment I don't think listing each name in the last section, then having a table with all of them is the best possibility. First it is redundant, and a bit not very esthetically pleasing. How about just having a table with colored lines for non-German ones. Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support But there are a few things in the article that could be worked on, a copyedit for comma use being one and the table issue noted above another. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My support was indeed on the basis of Criterion 1a alone, and I should have made this clear.
It is fine for members of a related WikiProject to visit and support an article, but all eyes are on the scope with which they delineate their support, and the depth of their comments. We would be delighted if such members stayed around to review chosen aspects of a few articles outside their area; that way, everyone benefits and we can gain familiarity with their analytical and critical approaches.
White Shadows says: "I linked Uboat.net to every submarine merely for the convenience of readers since many of them may not have Sokol or Gardiner or any of the other books mentioned in the article. While I linked every U-boat in that table to Uboat.net, I did not mean to do so as a source more than a way for readers to see info on this subject without going to the library or spending 70$ on books of this subject." But this is not the point. WP damages its reputation significantly if we get it wrong, and that is so easy to do, especially in MilHist. The cost of books is irrelevant; they are available at public libraries, and even through GoogleBooks and Amazon, where you and/or readers can in some cases gain access to excerpts that contain key search words. Where there is a more reliable hard-copy source, it should be referenced as well as a URL: the best of both worlds. I suggest this FA be withdrawn and a thorough audit conducted on the sources. In other respects, it is very close to being among our best work. Let's ensure that we can be proud of this article in terms of its verifiability, too. Please, it's worth the extra trouble. Tony(talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is savable, but needs work. Here are examples from the top.
"Boats of the design were also operated by"—bit odd. At least "of this".
Do we need the German clutter at the opening? One is in italics, the other in roman: why? But I expect to see these German terms later if we are bothered with them right at the top. Otherwise a footnote, preferably tagged in the main text.
I wouldn't link "submarine" as well as "U-boat", bunched. Every kid knows what a submarine is. U-boat is a more specific article that links to submarine prominently.
Second para: two parallel rhythms: "small, maneuverable submarines able to operate in the narrow, shallow seas". They jangle a bit. Remove the comma after "small"?
"Several of the first boats underwent trials in German home waters, but the rest were"—why "but"? Are you contradicting the notion that only several of them were trialled in German waters? No: this is perfectly well expected by the reader. And, or a semicolon.
I know it was an empire; "who" is used for people. "The German Imperial Navy subsequently ordered an additional pair of boats to replace two sold to Austria-Hungary, who ordered a further three boats in April 1915." Isn't it "which"? Tony(talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't write stubs for the two red links, could you?
I'm not really a fan of adding even more 2-3 sentence unreferenced stubs into the mainspace. with that in mind, I've merely de-linked them for ascetics. Perhaps one day I'll try to get to them.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 10:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. I probably shouldn't have bothered you with this. Tony(talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Last para in lead is perfect.
No map of the advance? (Modern Belgium wouldn't have to be linked then).
I guess many readers won't have a clue how to visualise what happened. A map of northeastern Europe at the time, with arrows, etc? But this is beyong the call of duty; just a thought for the future. Tony(talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about the italics: "German Imperial Navy Type UB".
U-boote des Marinekorps U-Flotille Flandern, "U-boote der Ostseetreitkräfte V. U-Halbflottille", etc.—who cares, really? Why not an appendix at the bottom. This is the English WP, not WP.de. Tony(talk) 01:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query, has anyone posted yet to WP:RSN to get a reading on the use of uboat.net? This article relies a lot on it, when there apparently are higher quality published sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses. Tony(talk) 10:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Should probably support this, even though I helped with it. My work was minimal, and so I feel comfortable supporting this wonderful article. ceranthor 00:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note on sourcing, will editors supporting this article please speak to the outstanding concerns about reliable sources? Specifically, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ..." Are high-quality reliable sources consulted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've become accustomed to seeing the uboat.net web site used as a reference in these submarine articles and I believed that it had been accepted as a reliable source. That the editor-in-chief, Guðmundur Helgason, is not a professional naval historian is not a matter of concern to me; he is in fact described as a naval historian in at least one article published in the Journal of Military History. What does concern me is that there's no indication as to where the information on the uboat.net web comes from. In this particular article I'm also concerned that it over-relies on uboat.net even where there are equivalent sources published by university presses, such as Fontenoy's Submarines: an illustrated history of their impact published by the University of Hawaii Press and available on Google books. On the other hand, I think it's quite likely that the information on uboat.net is accurate, so I'm not prepared to oppose because of sourcing. MalleusFatuorum 21:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main thing to remember here is that about a year ago, sourcing requirements for FAs went from "reliable" to "high quality reliable". So while uboat.net probably meets RS, it may not meet the high quality side. Note that I generally don't get that involved in the "high quality" evaluation, because that varies according to the subject of the article. What's "high quality" for a medieval bishop (peer reviewed journal articles, books by university presses) isn't possible in say horse biographies (the next peer reviewed horse biography article I find will be the first). Every reviewer needs to evaluate the sources in a particular article against the "high quality" criteria themselves ... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ealdgyth: And that's exactly why I'm not prepared to oppose this article's promotion, as I'm not in a position to judge whether uboat.net is generally considered to be a "high quality reliable source" in this field. I could be persuaded that it is, but the nominator needs to present the argument. MalleusFatuorum 21:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query Nice work, I've made a small tweak, hope you like it if not its a wiki. But:
"In addition, five of the German Type UB Is assigned to the Pola Flotilla" is followed by a list of just four subs.
It mentions that one sub was interned by the Dutch, can you check for more info on that incident? I would have thought that such a breach of Dutch neutrality would have been covered.
"UB-6 ran aground in Dutch waters" If I was Dutch and in WWI I would have regarded a German submarine straying into my waters as a breach of neutrality. Hence I suspect the internment. ϢereSpielChequers 19:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interment is when a ship or other military personnel/equipment makes it's way into a neutral nation and rather than face the enemy across the border, they "intern" themselves in the neutral nation. It was not a breech of neutrality at all. They "surrendered" themselves to a neutral nation :)--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant law is enshrined in the Hague Convention; as White Shadows says, there was no breach of neutrality. MalleusFatuorum 19:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. But I read being caught running aground where a sub shouldn't be and deliberately sailing into Dutch waters and surrendering to a neutral as somewhat different. Do you have sources that say which of those scenarios applies? Or were German submarines free to pass through Dutch waters as long as they held fire and didn't run aground? ϢereSpielChequers 19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 March, UB-6 left Zeebrugge to patrol off the Mass lightship. Two days later, UB-6 entered Dutch territorial waters after their captain, Steckelberg made a navigational error, and ran aground at the mouth of the Maas River. Because the Netherlands was neutral during the war, and UB-6 did not leave Dutch territorial waters within 24 hours as required by international law, the submarine and her crew were interned by the Dutch. The Germans protested, but because UB-6's grounding was merely the result of an error and not because of distress, the Dutch could not release the submarine. Does this explain the situation? I'd rather not add it into the article as that would be going into a bit too much detail.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 20:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking that up, I'd suggest that the gist of that either belongs in an article on UB-6 or a footnote here. "UB-6 entered Dutch territorial waters due to a navigational error, and ran aground. Because the Netherlands was neutral during the war, and UB-6 did not leave Dutch territorial waters within 24 hours as required by international law, the submarine and her crew were interned by the Dutch. Germany protested, but because UB-6's grounding was the result of an error and not because of distress, the Dutch could not release the submarine." IMHO would not be overdetailed for a footnote IMHO. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a bit of repetition for example "becoming Podvodnik No. 18" in slightly different wordings is in three consecutive sections.
Too small and too slow. In what way were they too small? Also some info on typical speeds of target ships would be helpful context.
Ships sunk, damaged, or taken as a prize. Any chance of an expansion on this such as which theatres, any tonnages and whether these were military or civilian targets. Also with only a deck machinegun I'd be very impressed if they'd taken anything as prizes.
Crew of 14 - any info as to how that breaks down?
I'm afraid not. There was a captain but other than that, I'm not sure about any other crew positions/rankings within the submarines. I can take a crack at trying to find out if you want me to but don't be surprised if nothing turns up.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 03:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking - FA only requires us to go as far as the sources go. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does the 33 second dive time relate to? I'm assuming it isn't the one hour that the sub could travel submerged. Also do you know how long they could stay submerged for before running out of air? ϢereSpielChequers 21:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 33 second dive time refers to how long it took for the sub to reach the regular test depth of 50 metres. Would you like a mention of this or do you think this is too obvious to include and goes against the "don't go into unnecessary detail rule"?--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 03:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest either a link to an explanation of that test or a footnote. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added in colors to the table. Feel free to comment as to whether or not this is a good idea so I know whether to leave it or remove it.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 20:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the use of colour, but it made me think why the table looks wrong, I think the name of the sub should be the first column. Also if you are going to use colours for ownership then ideally the ones that changed ownership should be in both colours either with stripes or diagonally split boxes. ϢereSpielChequers 20:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note: I've made a request here for more eyes on the sourcing issue as I am conflicted on how consensus is leaning in terms of WP:WIAFA. Karanacs (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have mixed opinions about sourcing from uboat.net. Generally, I am comfortable sourcing to an amateur historian who has developed a good reputation and is widely cited in published sources. The problem is that I can't tell from looking at pages on uboat.net, where that information is sourced from. I would be more comfortable if uboat.net and other such sources used on Wikipedia had more meticulous references for where it gets info, and that you could follow the sources. I would feel the same way about a published book that lacks meticulous sourcing, unless perhaps the author has stellar, beyond-a-doubt expertise, and don't care that in this case, it's published online. For example, here, where did he get that information? Can you find another more official or reputable source to back up this information? I think this article over-relies on uboat.net as a source. Used more sparingly, perhaps I would support this as a featured article. Right now, I can't support but not going to oppose, either. --Aude (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen more and more of these submarines go through GAN, and I'll admit, the reliance on u-boat.net has made me stop and shake my head once or twice. Might be why I've never chosen to review any of them; I know I'd get into an argument on the site's reliability. Their sources page, [5] lists a good number of sources, but one sentence that concerns me, "We also have a number of things here that are not available anywhere in print." So where are they getting their information from? Who is fact-checking everything? Are they conducting original research? Here they are soliciting writers. What kind of credential verification are they doing for those writers to keep an enthusiast who has never seen the inside of a university library from doing their writing? This honestly doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the head's credentials. Then I see pages like this one on UB-9. What did she do for four years? Was she only operational for a week, as that's how long she's listed as having a CO? The page seems quite incomplete. I won't oppose over it, but it does seem like there are better sources available, though one may have to read German to understand them. Courcelles 19:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about uboat.net - I understand we are asked to accept uboat.net as a WP:RS based on the following:
User:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability says, "I initially had the same concerns about citing Uboat.net until I did a search for other works that have cited the website. I came up with the following through Google Books", listing 7 published works.
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; [...] In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
Although I can see why the site's mention in published works lends it an air of respectability, I'm currently unable to see that WP:V recognizes that as a principle determining reliability of a source for a Wikipedia article. PL290 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to me that a "representative survey of the relevant literature" on this topic (a military vessel designed, constructed and operated by German-speakers) would include reasonable consultation of German sources. The only German source appears to be this online excerpt (a violation of WP:LINKVIO?) Was the book itself surveyed, or just that site? Whatever the status of uBoat.net, the apparent neglect of the substantial German publications seems problematic. For example:
Bendert, Harald (2000). Die UB-Boote der Kaiserlichen Marine 1914-1918 Mittler & Sohn Verlag, ISBN3813207137
Rössler, Eberhard (1997). Die Unterseeboote der Kaiserlichen Marine. Bernhard & Graefe, ISBN3763759638
Rössler, Eberhard (1996). Geschichte des deutschen U-Bootbaus. Band 1. Bernhard & Graefe, ISBN3860471538
Sieche, Erwin (1998). Unterseeboote der K.u.K-Marine Podzun-Pallas, ISBN3790906506
Botting, Douglas (2001). Die deutschen Unterseeboote im 1. und 2. Weltkrieg Gondolino, ISBN3811218530
Basch-Ritter, Renate (1991). Österreich auf allen Meeren. Geschichte der k.( u.)k. Kriegsmarine von 1382 bis 1918. Styria im Styria Pichler, ISBN3222117969
Gruber, Karl (2005). Seemacht unter rot-weiß-roter Flagge. K.u.K. Kriegsmarine. Milizverlag Salzburg, ISBN3901185259
Were any of these surveyed? Эlcobbolatalk 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to incorporate these sources into the text...if I spoke German or had access to them. I'm in no position to get them and what 1-2 books on that list I can read on Google books, is in German.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 20:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly agree with comments above; particularly Courcelles and Elcobbola. Haven't the time for a full search, but it seems that a book such as the following should have been consulted:
R.H. Gibson, Maurice Prendergast. "The German Submarine War 1914-1918". Periscope Publishing Ltd., 2002. 9781904381082
Truthkeeper, that book was consulted! It is used several times throughout the article and I've just added more citations from it :)--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 21:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, about that - I keep crashing! Had actually tried to delete above, but it seems have posted anyway. Anyway, glad you added more from Gibson and Prendergast. Generally I think it's best to use the highest quality sources available. (Hope this posts ... ) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it's like. Anyway, I understand and agree but I do consider Uboat.net a high quality source. I have tried to use other sources to get a mixture of online and offline sources in the text and will continue with this but I can only do so much with books. Not much exists on the subject if you know what I mean.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 21:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reading through the comments above, I can sense the reluctance of editors tackling the question of uboat.net's status. On the one hand, Gudmundur is clearly a devoted student of the boats and appears to have taken considerable care in his work. Ditto White Shadows. Further, that website has been relied upon for various articles at GA (I understand) and no-one wants to see the quality status of a series of articles potentially unravel over a discussion only now taking place. I can also hear myself thinking "how will we ever consistently get English-language FAs on non-English subjects if we insist on consultation of non-English language books?" (I hoped to one day get Art of Iceland up to this standard, and own almost all the English-language books on the subject, but can see that ambition fading...)
So. There seem to be two issues mixed together here: whether the website is a "high quality reliable source"; and whether a comprehensive survey of the lit. has taken place in the absence of reference to major German-language books on the subject. I am not commenting on the latter question. On the former:
None of the editors / contributors appears to have relevant qualifications. Like Malleus, I agree that this in itself may not be necessary to establishing reliability, but it may influence judgement about "high quality" reliability.
The fact that there is a general list of sources, but no sourcing on the individual pages, I think counts against the site's quality.
Is it just me, or is there another factor here, in that we are relying consierably on what is in fact a tertiary, not a secondary, source? What Gudmundur has created is essentially the U-Boat Encyclopedia. Note WP:RS includes: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." (emphasis in original) Yet Gudmundur has used the secondary sources (acording to his sources page) to create what is now a tertiary source.
The strongest argument in favour of uboat.net's favour is its reputation amongst other writers. Slp1's list at the discussion here is germinal in this regard. However, the list isn't as impressive as it first appears. The first link: it certainly receives high praise from writer Gordon Williamson, though as Malleus has noted, that is in the context of online resources. Second link: didn't work for me - no relevant content. Third link: not sure that any claim to reliability can be made in the context of this particular book (on a very tangentially-related subject). Fourth link: Intute, an online resource for which I could find no evidence of its own reliability. Fifth link: a list of links appended to a commercial TV documentary webpage. Sixth link: a book about using online sources to teach critical thinking skills. I don't think the authors are frankly qualified to comment on whether the site is good or not (not that it stops them from doing so). Seventh link: A university website listing links to WWII resources: but it explicitly puts quote marks around the assessment of the site, indicating it is not the site's author's own assessment. Eighth link: Listed in a book called "The history highway 3.0: a guide to internet resources". Describes the site as "A comprehensive study of the German u-boat", which is simply inaccurate, calling the source into question. Ninth link: The Naval Museum of Manitoba's list of links that describes uboat.net as "very accurate and complete".
My feeling about the endorsements / praise for the site from most other sources is that they have done less fact-checking than anyone here, with the possible exception of Gordon Williamson. His alone is the only endorsement out of all the above that I feel can be trusted as coming from someone competent to reach a view. The rest are too tangential or themselves unreliable for us to use them as an assessment of whether the webpage in question is a "high quality reliable source".
Having said all of that, I would also comment that the dominant use of the website is for some fairly bare facts - launch dates, commissioning dates, and ultimate fate. Not sure whether this should be a factor in our deliberations about the extent of reliance on the site.
Dont know if that is any help. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conway's All the world's fighting ships, 1906-1921 By Robert Gardiner, Randal Gray, Przemysław Budzbon is a reliable source already used to a significant degree in the article. It appears to contain information that can be used to replace stuff coming from uboat.net in some instances. I note the WP article cites uboat.net in support of the first line in the uboat table. That line includes in the "fate" section: "Handed over to Italy as a war reparation and scrapped at Pola by 1920." Yet Gardiner p. 180 has this: "wrecked 4.6.15 and [broken up] 1918" as well as the subsequent handing over and scrapping in 1920 (p.343). Firstly, we should use Gardiner in preference to uboat.net; secondly, the wrecking is omitted from uboat.net's page. It looks to me as though a bit more can be drawn from Gardiner. This will also minimise the losses from the article that would occur if we avoided uboat.net as a source altogether. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of us (considering this FAC has about 10 supporters and currently no opposition) can agree that it is OK to use Uboat.net as a source as long is other secondary and offline sources are consulted as well. Uboat.net is great for those who do not have any offline sources available and can be regarded as a great online source but I understand that books always trump websites. I linked Uboat.net to every submarine merely for the convenience of readers since many of them may not have Sokol or Gardiner or any of the other books mentioned in the article. While I linked every U-boat in that table to Uboat.net, I did not mean to do so as a source more than a way for readers to see info on this subject without going to the library or spending 70$ on books of this subject. Every single book on German U-boats coast at least 50$ such as Sokol's and as a result, the use of Uboat.net is sometimes needed to complete the article. It may appear that the article overly relies on Uboat.net but there are only a few instances where something is cited by Uboat.net and not another offline source. I did use it as a tertiary source for the most part but still fail to believe that the site is not of high enough quality to remove or degrade or a "filler" source. If need be, I can add in yet more pages from Conway's into the table but I honestly think that such a course of action is not needed. I will continue to use this site on any future works on U-boats that I undertake as I have yet to see someone who actually works on the subject questions the site's reliability.--White ShadowsYour guess is as good as mine 10:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(considering this FAC has about 10 supporters and currently no opposition). I'm not seeing ten supporters (pls clarify), and there is plenty of concern raised by editors who aren't willing to oppose, but aren't convinced. Some of the supports are from WikiProject members who routinely support all ship articles, and Tony1 supports only on prose (I wish he'd consider all issues raised before supporting, but know from history to consider his supports only on 1a, and a 1a support from him is valuable, but limited). I'm also aware of other cases where high quality sources end up contradicting non-peer-reviewed online sources, so it is always a problem to rely on marginal online sources. These issues should be addressed; would it be possible to review the uboat.net sources and try to diminish the reliance on that source or replace them with higher quality sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, "delimited" would have been a more diplomatic term, particularly since I am distraught that you should seek to undermine my work elsewhere, and since I informed you that I would ignore you henceforth. Tony(talk) 13:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "delimited" would have been a better term; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I really appreciate the restraint shown by Malleus, Aude, Courcelles, Elcobbola and hamiltonstone in not opposing, and all the work they've put in to helping us decide the question. Taken together, their arguments are persuasive. uboat.net has been relied on too much for this article, and as currently sourced, it seems to me the article falls apart if you remove uboat.net. I'm not opposed to this article ever becoming an FA, but it's going to take more than a day or two to fix the sourcing problem. Btw, what's notable about this FAC isn't that SHIPS people are piling in to support, what's notable is that they aren't. TomStar gave a weak support, and his reviewing work is incredibly valuable, he always has perceptive things to say, but like Tony1, he's not expecting everyone to take his support as a clue that they don't have to do their own work, he works as part of a team. Everyone else who normally reviews and supports SHIPS articles at A-class and at FAC is notably absent. I've never heard a credible argument that SHIPS reviewers can't be trusted, and in my 6-month history at SHIPS, I haven't seen any articles pass FAC or A-class that shouldn't have. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I don’t consider it so much restraint as an attempt to avoid being unfair, as I’m uncertain of the extent to which the relatively new "representative survey of the relevant literature" verbiage requires consultation of foreign sources (although my personal view is that it certainly ought to; especially in cases such as this: non-English topic where a questionable source is being heavily replied upon). As a fundamental property of Wikiepdia is the ability to collaborate with geographically and culturally dispersed editors, however, I don't accept as valid issues of inability to read a given language and inability to access “foreign” works, whether cheaply or otherwise. Have any Germans (e.g. via Babel categories or Wikiproject Germany) even been asked to assist? KuK, for example, appears highly involved in Marine articles at de.wiki and has an English Babel level 3 (advanced). Has s/he been asked whether s/he has sources or could go to a library and get them? How much effort has really been put forth here? Эlcobbolatalk 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg){kind=link}
