Talk:SM UB-3/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):
 * Austria–Hungary should be written with an endash, since the name implies on disjunction between two states (Austria is not altering Hungary, but instead they are joined together in a union).
 * Well, I can understand that view, but I punctuate it with a hyphen as two parts of a whole. Either way, even the Austria–Hungary article can't decide which it is. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 14:40, 10 March 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:
 * All GA criterion met, so I am passing the article. Congratulations with another good article. Arsenikk (talk)  10:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * All GA criterion met, so I am passing the article. Congratulations with another good article. Arsenikk (talk)  10:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All GA criterion met, so I am passing the article. Congratulations with another good article. Arsenikk (talk)  10:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)