Talk:SM UB-5/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):

   • The lead mentions that she is broken up twice (choose only one of them), but they also state two different years.
   • The lead mentions 11 sunk ships, but I only count four in the prose and the list.
     • I had adapted the text of the lead from that of SM UB-2 and failed to update the second sentence of the lead paragraph with UB-5's (rather than UB-2's) stats and fate. I have now corrected it. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:56, 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:

   I am placing the article on hold until the above comments have been looked upon. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   • Thanks for another review. I've commented on your objection above. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

   • Great work. I suspected it was a copy-and-paste error, but wanted to be certain. Congratulations with yet another good article. You are making a highly appreciated and valuable contribution to the encyclopædia. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)