Talk:SM UB-43/GA1

GA Review

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • References needed:

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comment: I don't like the system for notes. It's too complicated for other editors to change without causing errors. Take a look at cref. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)