U-1-class submarine (Austria-Hungary) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Prose
A few issues, all minor
"after allowing the navies of other countries to pioneer submarine developments, in 1904 ordered the Austrian Naval Technical Committee (MTK) to produce a submarine design."
"in 1904" is out of place.
Reworded to avoid awkward phrasing
"When the Navy rejected the January 1905 MTK design and other designs submitted as part of a public competition as impracticable"
One longgg part of a sentence...
Split and reworded
What is the "MTK design"?
the design from the Austrian Naval Technical Committee, or MTK, referred to in the previous sentence.
Sorry, that was me being dumb. :) —Ed17(Talk / Contribs) 19:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Random
Do you really have to cite the same refs twice in the first para of "Service Career"?
The first one should have been for Conway's and has been changed.
Can we get a ref for the submerged speed (I'm assuming that it is Conway's...?)
I'm putting it on hold, but I'm not really worried that these won't get done. Yet another excellent article from you, Bellhalla! :) —Ed17(Talk / Contribs) 16:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the comments. My replies to your concerns are interspersed above. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]