Talk:SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary) is part of the German Type UB I submarines series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 10, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
March 15, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 10, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that SM U-10 and SM U-11, which were U-10-class submarines constructed in Germany and shipped to Austria-Hungary by rail, were both commissioned into the German Imperial Navy and the Austro-Hungarian Navy during World War I?

Current status: Good article

Military history: Maritime / European / German / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A summary of this article appears in U-10 class submarine.

GA review[edit]

I have begun a GA review, which can be found here. Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now a Good Article. Congragulations, and good work. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The article so far is pretty good. I have a few small comments, before I pass it.

The wording in a few sentences might be reviewed. An example would be "There is no record of how long it took for UB-15's sections to be assembled..." Is there no record, or was there a record that was lost or is now inaccessible? I'd imagine records were kept. However, from that sentence, all those thoughts were sprung, which may or may not be a good thing. My suggestion would be "A similar ship was built in two weeks," or something to that effect. I'd read through the article a few times and try to clarify what may be a confusing sentence.

How about "There is no known surviving (italics are mine) record of how long it took for UB-15's sections to be assembled. However, a similar ship (UB-3) was built in two weeks. I think that that addresses the issue nicely.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works. Implement the sentence how you see fit, and I'll take a look. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented the sentense. You can go ahead and take a look.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a reference after every commander necessary, or is it possible to lay the source right after the Commander: preface, considering they are all from the same source?

I removed the refs from all te commanders (and the one for victories) and added one ref on the top of the section entitled Service record as U-11. Hope that this is a good alternative.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works well, thanks. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a better picture possible? I understand that with submarines they may not be, but it would be nice to see more than just the top of the ship. If it is not possible, that's not a problem.

Sadly, there is no known image of SM U-11 other than this one. And this one is even copyrighted! Sorry.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, okay. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a few typos I saw quickly, but I'd run through and make sure that any grammatical or spelling errors are gone. I didn't see any through my read through, but it never hurts to double check.

Malleus has fixed the rest of the spelling mistakes. Done.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to add the mph as well as the kmph, considering that both knots and kilometers would be foreign to a large portion of readers.

I'm not the best at these things. So can you point out exactly where this is mentioned and I'll get back to you on this as soon as I have found out how to fix it?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"U-11 was capable of up to 6.5 knots (12.0 km/h) while surfaced and 5.5 knots (10.2 km/h)..." Hope this answers your question. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go and convert the number into miles.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Converted and done.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second note might be more useful in the infobox, where the issue of the transfer and the date comes up first.

I've moved the note into the infobox.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"1,500 nautical miles (2,800 km) @ 5 kn (9.3 km/h) surfaced" - Not being common with ship articles, is the @ symbol commonly used like this in this context?

No. I've replaced the @ with "at".--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can address the concerns, or if I am in error, than the article will pass. Thanks for an interesting read.

Reviewer: Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just wanted to comment and say that I have read your concerns. I'll get to all of them hopefully by the end of the day. Thanks!--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the exeption of conversion(s), I've fixed all of these small issues that you mentioned.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]