Talk:German submarine U-105 (1940)

uboat.net

The discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Uboat.net was rather inconclusive. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Also a quick google books search indicates the site is cited with caution by professional historians, especially when it gives accounts that differ from the official record, for example [1]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I object to "Helgason, Guðmundur" being given as author of all of those pages. As far as I can tell, the individual pages do not have bylines, and the site has several contributors [2]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know. I personally find the proof presented in that discussion quite conclusive.

• Um, what? The author in the book you cited calls the site "usually reliable" while pointing out that one fact in it differs from the official record. My own Google Books search doesn't seem to agree with yours: hell, I even found this.

• I will concede that last point to you: I have removed the attributions to Helgason. --cc 09:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've found uboat.net (and ubootwaffe) to be generally good sources, with info tying up with printed sources in a number of cases. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:German submarine U-105 (1940)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Benea (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Nothing really outstanding here in the prose quality. Some of the sentences are a little long and convoluted, but not overly troublesome at this level of review. When it comes to the references, I'd recommend splitting them into a 'citations' and a 'references' section, as you make several references to different pages within the same work. You can then use a short form cite with the relevant page number (e.g. Jordan, The World's Merchant Fleets, 1939, p. 504. and then use the full reference form once in the appropriate section). HMS Speedy (1782) is an example of this in practice. Another thing to watch for is the template usage, when you reference a single page it should be 'page=4' instead of 'pages=4' to get the correct notation 'p. 4.' when the template generates, rather than 'pp.' which is the notation for more than one page. When you write out a title, try to be consistent in the capitalisation, so 'Axis Submarine Successes of World War Two' rather than 'Axis submarine successes of World War Two'

Alright, I believe that's done as well. --cc 08:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

I've done a little more as well, the cites and referencing look fine now.

1. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are some potential OR issues, all around this sentence in the lead, and the subsequent mention in the article body - 'U-105 was ordered by the Kriegsmarine on 24 May 1938 as part of Nazi Germany's naval rearmament program, Plan Z, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles which forbade Germany from possessing submarines.' Plan Z was not implemented until early 1939, so U-105 cannot have been part of it. General German rearmament yes, Plan Z no. The second part is problematic in that though it was technically in violation of the Treaty of Versailles, the treaty had largely been abrogated well before U-105 was ordered. The relevance of this mention is therefore highly questionable. Given that this is only cited to the wikisource text of the treaty, it is easy to see how some OR has crept in. I'd recommend removing '... Plan Z, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles which forbade Germany from possessing submarines.' and the cite to wikisource, to correct this. I have done a little resectioning to improve the flow of the text. This has left the first paragraphs in the 1941 and 1942 subsections with an uncited last sentence. Could you add the relevant cite in for completeness? This will then satisfy part b.

Both done. --cc 07:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks good.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The coverage looks good now, and I assume is provides pretty comprehensive coverage of the available sources.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

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

   As in the previous review I understand the difficulty of getting hold of images. There are a selection of images of Type IX submarines on commons, which you might decide to use as a general illustration of the type of Uboat, but I wouldn't consider the absence of images in this case to be a failing criteria.

Added anyway. --cc 07:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There is still some work to be done here, but it's fairly routine technical clean up and some minor text reworking. It should be easy to address these within the time of the review, so I'm putting this on hold for now until these are done.

Something I've just noticed, in the service section of the infobox. There is a brief period when Oberleutnant zur See Hans-Adolf Schweichel is listed as in command, but this is not mentioned in the article. Jürgen Nissen is described as an Oberleutnant zur See in the article but a Kapitänleutnant in the infobox. If he was promoted while in command can this be stated in the article. Heinrich Schuch is the only name in the infobox without a rank. Can one be provided? Benea (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

1. According to Uboat.net, Hans-Adolf Schweichel was in command of the boat for four weeks, but I've found nothing else about that period.

2. I've added the information about Nissen's promotion.

3. There is a rank provided, but it's for September 1943 onwards, long after his leaving U-105. Can that still be added? --cc 16:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If there's no indication on Schuch's rank, then it can be left out. Schweichel would have been in command during U-105's time in port after the attack in the Bay of Biscay. I would add that he took over from Schuch, but did not undertake a combat patrol and was replaced by Nissen. Benea (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That's now added as well. --cc 08:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything seems to have been adequately addressed, I am going to pass this article as GA class. Benea (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Range?

Having copyedited this article, I noticed that the boat's range differs markedly in the infobox and the text:
8,700nm (infobox), 22,100nm (text) on the surface. 64nm (infobox) and 118nm (text) submerged.
As these figures are quite different, I am reluctant to change either.

Does anyone know the correct information?

RASAM (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)