Talk:SM UB-5/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):
 * The lead mentions that she is broken up twice (choose only one of them), but they also state two different years.
 * The lead mentions 11 sunk ships, but I only count four in the prose and the list.
 * I had adapted the text of the lead from that of SMU UB-2 and failed to update the second sentence of the lead paragraph with UB-5s (rather than UB-2s) stats and fate. I have now corrected it. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:56, 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:
 * I am placing the article on hold until the above comments have been looked upon. Arsenikk (talk)  10:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for another review. I've commented on your objection above. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work. I suspected it was a copy-and-paste error, but wanted to be certain. Congratulations with yet another good article. You are making a highly appreciated and valuable contribution to the encyclopædia. Arsenikk (talk)  22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold until the above comments have been looked upon. Arsenikk (talk)  10:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for another review. I've commented on your objection above. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work. I suspected it was a copy-and-paste error, but wanted to be certain. Congratulations with yet another good article. You are making a highly appreciated and valuable contribution to the encyclopædia. Arsenikk (talk)  22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work. I suspected it was a copy-and-paste error, but wanted to be certain. Congratulations with yet another good article. You are making a highly appreciated and valuable contribution to the encyclopædia. Arsenikk (talk)  22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)