Talk:SM UB-3/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Austria–Hungary should be written with an endash, since the name implies on disjunction between two states (Austria is not altering Hungary, but instead they are joined together in a union).

   • Well, I can understand that view, but I punctuate it with a hyphen as two parts of a whole. Either way, even the Austria–Hungary article can't decide which it is. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:40, 10 March 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:

   All GA criterion met, so I am passing the article. Congratulations with another good article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)