Talk:SM U-22 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Ed! in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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


GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
  1. It is reasonably well written:
    Pass No problems there.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:
    Pass Though I would cauition that the article needs more sources if it is to be further promoted. I know records from 1921 aren't necessarily easy to find and there really isn't a guideline on a "minimum" number of sources, I have seen articles failed on the basis that they rely too heavily on too few sources, which has the potential for bias and/or a lack of comprehensive coverage. For the purpose of a GA, though, I find the article to be sufficient.
  3. It is broad in its coverage:
    Pass The article sufficiently covers the topic of this particular ship.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:
    Pass Though again the issue above could be a potential problem if the article is to be promoted.
  5. It is stable:
    Pass No problems there.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
    Pass No problems there.
  7. Overall:
    Pass The article is definately GA quality. Improve where possible and I would recommend trying to promote it further if you can. -Ed!(talk)(Hall of Fame) 21:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply