Talk:U-101 class submarine/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 19:32, 4 January 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):

   • I'm a little startled at the use of what is essentially one source for the entire article. Is there just not that much written on this subject?
     • I've found no other source that gives any details like those provided in Conway's. I know of German-language sources that cover A-H ships and subs, but do not have access to them (or speak German). — Bellhalla (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

   Overall, a nice article, with just a quick question about references that I'd like answered before I pass the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. (Comment interspersed above.) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Allright, I'll take your word for it :) Thanks for the reply, and I'm passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)