Talk:SM U-4 (Austria-Hungary)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * "she scored what one book called her greatest success" - name the book, if not the author or publisher (i.e. "what Conway's Fighting Ships called her").
 * Added to the lead (the book was already listed in the main body text).
 * I saw that it was, but I felt it was appropriate to name the book in the lead too.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "In August, she was sent out to search for her missing sister ship" - include the information on her loss in the main article, not in an endnote.
 * Added.
 * Its usual in my experience to include "HMS" or "SMS" in the link when a surface ship that uses such prefixes is first mentioned.
 * WP:NC-SHIPS recommends not including the prefix if it's clear from context. I will be happy to add them if there are any that are not clear.
 * I ahdn't seen that instruction before and I have to say that I disagree with it. However, since it is in the guidelines, you should do what you feel is appropriate.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Thanks for the review and suggestions. I've addressed your suggestions above. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and suggestions. I've addressed your suggestions above. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)