Talk:SM UB-11/GA1

GA Review

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

I have reviewed this article. I found no gaping holes, MOS issues or anything substantial. Just two points before I pass it:

1. 'SM UB-11 was broken up in Germany' is mentioned thrice in such a tiny article; twice in the lead and once in the text following. I suppose it should be made 1 in the lead and 1 after.

   Good point. I've reworked the lead to mention that only once. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Same is true for 'She was used exclusively in a training role throughout the war'. It is mentioned twice in the lead and once in the text following. But not only that, in the main body of the text, the word 'probably' is used, whereas the lead suggests that this is 100% sure. This is a bit confusing and needs some clarification. - DSachan (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

   As part of reworking the lead, I've echoed the wording used in the body of the article which better captures what is known about the submarine. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

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):

   I am assuming no image of the submarine is available. If one can be found, it would be great.

   There are some fair-use images of different Type UB Is (should be visible in Category:Type UB I U-boats), but I'm hesitant to use a fair-use image of a sister ship. (Ordinarily I don't mind using a free-use photo of a sister ship if that's all there is, but I think it's a little on the sketchy side to use a fair-use image for that.) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I've responded to your specific points above. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time for the corrections and writing one more good article. - DSachan (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)