Talk:SM U-69/GA1

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

And this one for three :) I'll have this review up as soon as I'm done with the other two! Dana boomer (talk) 19:34, 4 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. My only comment, which is not enough to prevent the GA review from passing, is that the lead could probably stand to be trimmed a bit, as at the moment the length of it makes the article feel a bit...top heavy :) If you have any questions, please let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 4 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. My only comment, which is not enough to prevent the GA review from passing, is that the lead could probably stand to be trimmed a bit, as at the moment the length of it makes the article feel a bit...top heavy :) If you have any questions, please let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good with this article, so I am going to pass it to GA status. My only comment, which is not enough to prevent the GA review from passing, is that the lead could probably stand to be trimmed a bit, as at the moment the length of it makes the article feel a bit...top heavy :) If you have any questions, please let me know! Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)