Talk:Type U 66 submarine/GA1

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

Guess I'll take this one too! Review should be up soon... Dana boomer (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * For boats #66 and 69, you say that German records do not agree with British records on the fate of the boats. What, then, do the German records say happened to the boats?
 * I made it explicit for each that the official German fate for the subs is unknown. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 8 January 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:
 * Just one issue with prose, so I am putting this article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've added a note above about your one comment. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Just one issue with prose, so I am putting this article on hold. Please let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've added a note above about your one comment. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)