Talk:German submarine U-710
Latest comment: 3 years ago by SL93 in topic Did you know nomination
 | German submarine U-710 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 2, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that U-710 was sunk only ten days after beginning her first patrol? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg)
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Picture edit
Pic of this U boat would be great - anyone????— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs) 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Did you know nomination edit
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
( )
- * ... that U-710 was only operational for ten days before being sunk? Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunted 1942–1945 – page 275
- ALT1: ... that U-710 was sunk only ten days after beginning her first patrol? Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunted 1942–1945 – page 275
Improved to Good Article status by Lettler (talk). Self-nominated at 01:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC).
- New GA, meets all other DYK requirements. There may be a concern about what is meant by "operational" in the hook; ALT1 avoids that so I think we should go with that. The nine-days is not stated explicitly in the article - it says it left on patrol on 13 days after the first, so the 14th. The next para says it was sunk on the 24th, so I think the hook is supported by a simple WP:CALC. DYK requires a ref on the sentence with the hook facts. "Blair" refs the last sentence about 49 lost. As written, "Kemp" supports everything in the para before that. We need a ref after the sentence "A second attack..." because the date of the sinking is in the hook. You said in the nom that it came from "Blair", so that needs to be repeated earlier. Also, it doesn't exactly say when the second attack was, presumably the same day. Could you clarify if that was "minutes later", "hours later" or what (by the same B-17)? so that the hooks matches better.
MB 18:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lettler, please see the rest of my comment about inline citations and clarifying the details of the sinking. MB 02:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- MB Is this what you wanted? Lettlerhello • contribs 17:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that clarifies the details of the sinking in the article such that it unambiguously says what is stated in the hook. The added citations meet the DYK requirements as specified in Did you know/Reviewing guide, which every reviewer should require before passing. Since I don't have access to any of the refs, AGF on the accuracy of the article. QPQ review not required.
MB 00:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that clarifies the details of the sinking in the article such that it unambiguously says what is stated in the hook. The added citations meet the DYK requirements as specified in Did you know/Reviewing guide, which every reviewer should require before passing. Since I don't have access to any of the refs, AGF on the accuracy of the article. QPQ review not required.
- MB Is this what you wanted? Lettlerhello • contribs 17:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Lettler, please see the rest of my comment about inline citations and clarifying the details of the sinking. MB 02:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- New GA, meets all other DYK requirements. There may be a concern about what is meant by "operational" in the hook; ALT1 avoids that so I think we should go with that. The nine-days is not stated explicitly in the article - it says it left on patrol on 13 days after the first, so the 14th. The next para says it was sunk on the 24th, so I think the hook is supported by a simple WP:CALC. DYK requires a ref on the sentence with the hook facts. "Blair" refs the last sentence about 49 lost. As written, "Kemp" supports everything in the para before that. We need a ref after the sentence "A second attack..." because the date of the sinking is in the hook. You said in the nom that it came from "Blair", so that needs to be repeated earlier. Also, it doesn't exactly say when the second attack was, presumably the same day. Could you clarify if that was "minutes later", "hours later" or what (by the same B-17)? so that the hooks matches better.
