Talk:SM UB-2/GA1

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


 * 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):
 * What makes uboat.net reliable?
 * I initially had the same concerns about citing Uboat.net until I did a search for other works that have cited the website. I came up with the following through Google Books, listing only those where I could see an actual citation:
 * There are probably more that are not visible via "Limited Preview" at Google Books. All appear to be major publishers, including one that's from an academic press. Some of the books have multiple editions; one has 23 different editions. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * On hold. Well written, but with uboat.net being the dominant source of information, reliability must be established before the article reaches GA standards. Arsenikk (talk)  10:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've replied above to your note about sourcing. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Though there are no rules for this type of situation, I will except uboat.net as reliable, and thereby pass the article. Congratulation! Arsenikk (talk)  09:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * On hold. Well written, but with uboat.net being the dominant source of information, reliability must be established before the article reaches GA standards. Arsenikk (talk)  10:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've replied above to your note about sourcing. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Though there are no rules for this type of situation, I will except uboat.net as reliable, and thereby pass the article. Congratulation! Arsenikk (talk)  09:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On hold. Well written, but with uboat.net being the dominant source of information, reliability must be established before the article reaches GA standards. Arsenikk (talk)  10:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've replied above to your note about sourcing. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Though there are no rules for this type of situation, I will except uboat.net as reliable, and thereby pass the article. Congratulation! Arsenikk (talk)  09:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)