Talk:German submarine U-2336/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jhbuk (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead introduces, but does not summarise the rest of the article. I think the second part should be split off into a new section about construction, but more information is neede in the lead, explaining what the boat did, and what is written under service history. The lead ought not to contain unique information.

   Done.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 19:45, 5 April 2010 (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):

   While I appreciate that the main information about the vessels is in the German Type XXIII submarine article, I think there needs to be a short summary of the vessel's characteristics, just for context; maybe just 2-3 sentences that could be combined with information about construction (like in USS Iowa, for instance). This sort of thing seems to have been done on some ship GAs (that are part of a class), but not on others.

   Done, I hope that this is good enough for you. If not then I'll try to get more info if I can.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 19:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

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):

   Only one image, but I understand that there are probably not many other ones.

7. Overall:

   Pass: