Talk:SM U-67/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Everything looks good with this article, so I am going to pass it to GA status. The only comment I have is that the lead is probably a little long for an article of this length - two paragraphs are more than sufficient for an article of under 15 kb. However, this is not a huge deal, and not something that will hold up a GA pass. Nice work on another Good Article! Dana boomer (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Everything looks good with this article, so I am going to pass it to GA status. The only comment I have is that the lead is probably a little long for an article of this length - two paragraphs are more than sufficient for an article of under 15 kb. However, this is not a huge deal, and not something that will hold up a GA pass. Nice work on another Good Article! Dana boomer (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good with this article, so I am going to pass it to GA status. The only comment I have is that the lead is probably a little long for an article of this length - two paragraphs are more than sufficient for an article of under 15 kb. However, this is not a huge deal, and not something that will hold up a GA pass. Nice work on another Good Article! Dana boomer (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)