Talk:SM U-23 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass No problems there.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Though I would cauition that the article needs more sources if it is to be further promoted. I know records from 1921 aren't necessarily easy to find and there really isn't a guideline on a "minimum" number of sources, I have seen articles failed on the basis that they rely too heavily on too few sources, which has the potential for bias and/or a lack of comprehensive coverage. For the purpose of a GA, though, I find the article to be sufficient.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass The article sufficiently covers the topic of this particular ship.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass Though again the issue above could be a potential problem if the article is to be promoted.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass No problems there.

7. Overall:

   Pass The article is definately GA quality. Improve where possible and I would recommend trying to promote it further if you can. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 21:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)