Talk:German submarine U-162 (1941)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:German submarine U-162 (1941)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A couple points worth mentioning:

• Is it possible to have the same amount of detail seen in the infobox on, say, SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary)?

SO you want me to go over to SM U-11 and fix up the infobox there or fix up this one?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 10:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Expand this article's infobox to the same level of depth, if possible. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• No picture available?

Sadly, there is no surviving image of U-162. I may be able to get an image of another u-boat from the class that u-162 is in though.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 10:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added in an image of another Type IXC u-boat instead.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 10:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Almost the entire crew survived and were then taken to POW camps in the United States where they were to remain for the rest of the war,"—reword or reference please. "Almost the entire crew" is vague and sounds like what would be defaulted to when a reference can't be found.

I've reworded it and added a citation.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 10:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Either no citations or all citations in the lede.

All citations. done as well.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 10:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Placing the image of the emblem where it is interferes with the table right below it.

Moved.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 10:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• For the further reading section, I'd advise removing the Vol. 2 piece, only because further reading for the general topic would not be volume specific, but it could vary as to what you think the section should be for.

I've removed it.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 10:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good thus far. Fix/resolve/correct me on those issues, and it's an easy pass.

Reviewer: Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I've addressed everything that you mentioned other than number 1 and 2. Let me know what you want be to do about them.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 10:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Address the current issues and it'll be an easy pass. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it now. (Yes this is still CE, I've gone through a name change)--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

All done.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

HMS and the table

Amongst many other copyedits, I've changed the RN ship names so that there is only one 'HMS'. This because a group of warships are still 'HMS' - 'Her/His Majesty's Ships.

I'm also thinking of re-writing the table so that it matches the majority of other U-boat articles. i.e. 'Raiding career' as a title and the main headings reading thus: "Date || Ship || Nationality (flag then country) || Tonnage || Fate (Sunk or Damaged). I realize that the table would be slightly different to those at "Uboat.net", but that is how many other U-boat article tables are presented and at least the numbers of 'copy-and-paste' should be reduced.

What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)