Talk:Type U 66 submarine/GA1

GA Review

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

Guess I'll take this one too! Review should be up soon... Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   For boats #66 and 69, you say that German records do not agree with British records on the fate of the boats. What, then, do the German records say happened to the boats?

   I made it explicit for each that the official German fate for the subs is unknown. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 8 January 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:

   Just one issue with prose, so I am putting this article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I've added a note above about your one comment. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)