Talk:SM UB-8/GA1

GA Review

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

Below is my review of the article.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Two points:

   1. The sentence 'The submarine was used for reconnaissance and coastal defense, and patrolled a regular route from that took her from Varna north to Kaliakra, Mangalia, Constanţa, and back, and then south from Varna to Burgas, Sozopol, and back.' is a little bit confusing.
      • It looked like there was a stray word or two in there. I've reworded to, I hope, be more clear. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
   2. It would be nice to provide the year for 'Podvodnik's first patrol under the Bulgarian flag took place on 4 and 5 July when she sailed to Cape Shabla and Mangalia.' whether it was 1916 or 1917. It was not clear to me by reading the text. Both of these are in the second paragraph of Bulgarian career part.
      • I always restate the year in a new section, but don't know why I didn't in this case. I've now clarified that It was 1916 in the text. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Just one point. In the lead and the main body, the date of launch is 15 October 1914, but in the infobox it is 15 November 1914. Please remove the ambiguity.

   • It was October, so the infobox has been changed accordingly. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

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: soon to be decided

Thanks - DSachan (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)