Talk:SM UB-14/GA1

GA Review

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.

   • Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

I've addressed the one issue you raised above. Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)