Talk:SM UB-14/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Bellhalla in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I have reviewed this article. I found no gaping holes, MOS issues or anything substantial. The prose flows quite smoothly. Just one issue:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    No mention of the year in the Aegean sea section. It might confuse the reader a bit. At least one would be nice.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
Thanks - DSachan (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've addressed the one issue you raised above. Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply