The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
This looks an interesting article submitted by
Sturmvogel 66 and
Parsecboy on a lesser-known vessel with an interesting story. It has been a pleasure to review.
Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 60% of authorship is by Sturmvogel 66 and 30% by Parsecboy. It is currently assessed as a Start and C class article for different WikiProjects but has subsequently seen major activity.
The text is clear and concise.
It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant
Manuals of Style
The article is of appropriate length, 1,027 words of readable prose.
The lead is of appropriate length at 104 words.
There is no evidence of edit wars.
Text seems to be neutral, comprehensive and shows a balanced perspective.
I see no obvious spelling or grammar errors.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 5.7% chance of copyright violation, which is therefore given as unlikely.
There seems to be a low chance of original research.
Citations seem to be thorough.
uboat.net is used as a source. It looks self-published and the owner, Gudmundur Helgason, and the contributor Rainer Kolbicz seem to present themselves as a programmer and a computer specialist. Please can you demonstrate that this is a reputable source.
Thank you for the link. It feels that the discussion is inconclusive but tends towards unreliable. Therefore I feel it would be better to replace this with a source that is certainly reputable.
simongraham (
talk)
20:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Replaced, but be advised that my research for my GAN on HMS Bonaventure shows that uboat.net is now using primary references, which is the main argument against the site, IMO. See for yourself at
[2] I think that we need to judge it on an article-by-article basis.
Interesting. This does seem an extensive resource. However, I feel that
Peacemaker67's comment that "All three of author, content and publisher need to be reliable. The content may generally be reliable, but the author needs to be too, as does the publisher." is still relevant.
The remaining references appear to be from reputable sources.
All accessible sources are live.
Spot checks confirm Campbell 1979 and Jordan & Caresse 2019.
Corbett seems to link to Volume IV rather than I. Neither seem to have the information on page 158.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA review (see
here for what the criteria are, and
here for what they are not)
This looks an interesting article submitted by
Sturmvogel 66 and
Parsecboy on a lesser-known vessel with an interesting story. It has been a pleasure to review.
Comments
This is a stable and well-written article. 60% of authorship is by Sturmvogel 66 and 30% by Parsecboy. It is currently assessed as a Start and C class article for different WikiProjects but has subsequently seen major activity.
The text is clear and concise.
It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant
Manuals of Style
The article is of appropriate length, 1,027 words of readable prose.
The lead is of appropriate length at 104 words.
There is no evidence of edit wars.
Text seems to be neutral, comprehensive and shows a balanced perspective.
I see no obvious spelling or grammar errors.
Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies a 5.7% chance of copyright violation, which is therefore given as unlikely.
There seems to be a low chance of original research.
Citations seem to be thorough.
uboat.net is used as a source. It looks self-published and the owner, Gudmundur Helgason, and the contributor Rainer Kolbicz seem to present themselves as a programmer and a computer specialist. Please can you demonstrate that this is a reputable source.
Thank you for the link. It feels that the discussion is inconclusive but tends towards unreliable. Therefore I feel it would be better to replace this with a source that is certainly reputable.
simongraham (
talk)
20:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Replaced, but be advised that my research for my GAN on HMS Bonaventure shows that uboat.net is now using primary references, which is the main argument against the site, IMO. See for yourself at
[2] I think that we need to judge it on an article-by-article basis.
Interesting. This does seem an extensive resource. However, I feel that
Peacemaker67's comment that "All three of author, content and publisher need to be reliable. The content may generally be reliable, but the author needs to be too, as does the publisher." is still relevant.
The remaining references appear to be from reputable sources.
All accessible sources are live.
Spot checks confirm Campbell 1979 and Jordan & Caresse 2019.
Corbett seems to link to Volume IV rather than I. Neither seem to have the information on page 158.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.