Talk:Type U 66 submarine/GA1
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)
- 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)
- 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?
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- 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)
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks for the review. I've added a note above about your one comment. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)