Talk:SM UB-5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleSM UB-5 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starSM UB-5 is part of the German Type UB I submarines series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 10, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 8, 2010Good topic candidateNot promoted
March 15, 2010Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:SM UB-5/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)[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:
    I am placing the article on hold until the above comments have been looked upon. Arsenikk (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for another review. I've commented on your objection above. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]