Talk:U-101 class submarine/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- I'm a little startled at the use of what is essentially one source for the entire article. Is there just not that much written on this subject?
- I've found no other source that gives any details like those provided in Conway's. I know of German-language sources that cover A-H ships and subs, but do not have access to them (or speak German). — Bellhalla (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm a little startled at the use of what is essentially one source for the entire article. Is there just not that much written on this subject?
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Overall, a nice article, with just a quick question about references that I'd like answered before I pass the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks for the review. (Comment interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Allright, I'll take your word for it :) Thanks for the reply, and I'm passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)