Talk:SM UB-14/GA1

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

I have reviewed this article. I found no gaping holes, MOS issues or anything substantial. The prose flows quite smoothly. Just one issue:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * No mention of the year in the Aegean sea section. It might confuse the reader a bit. At least one would be nice.
 * Done. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 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:




 * Thanks - DSachan (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the one issue you raised above. Thanks for the review. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)