Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 ( talk · contribs) 15:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC) reply

• The nominators have done such good work preparing this series of articles, I'll just go ahead and review them all. Reviews should be up in the next few days. - Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 15:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC) reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I've copyedited the article a bit, and now it's at a good prose standard. It complies with all the relevant MoS sections.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism):

   I'll have to AGF on the offline book sources, but online sources appear to confirm the substance of the article. Uboat.net isn't necessarily a reliable source, but it claims that its details come from the British National Archives, and I guess I'm willing to accept that.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

   The article seems to cover all the major aspects of the topic (design, construction, service history), and doesn't get lost in any excessive detail. It's a minor detail and might seem obvious, but I wish the text that discusses the boat's name pointed out that all the S-class subs were given names that begin with 'S'.

   It's a common naming practice, especially for the RN. See Ship class.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 17:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC) reply

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The tone is appropriately neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All the images are relevant and appear to have valid licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Only one tiny detail, and this one will be ready for promotion!

   Given the discussion at the other S-Class subs, I retract my comment about 'S'-names, and this article is promoted! - Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 00:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC) reply