Talk:Type U 66 submarine/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Dana boomer in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Guess I'll take this one too! Review should be up soon... Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    For boats #66 and 69, you say that German records do not agree with British records on the fate of the boats. What, then, do the German records say happened to the boats?
    I made it explicit for each that the official German fate for the subs is unknown. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  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:  
    Just one issue with prose, so I am putting this article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply