Talk:SM UB-7

SM UB-7 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 17, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
February 8, 2010	Good topic candidate	Not promoted
March 15, 2010	Good topic candidate	Promoted
August 17, 2024	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
Current status: Good article

Ships

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Military history: Maritime / European / German / World War I

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War I task force

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:SM UB-7/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Below is my review of the article.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
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 supposed to be October. Now changed. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: soon to be decided

Thanks - DSachan (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the pair of reviews! — Bellhalla (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]