Talk:U-52 class submarine/GA1

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

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I see in the info box that they were laid down in Fiume. Can this information be incorporated and repeated in the text itself?--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually the infobox had the wrong builder/location, but has now been corrected. The builder was actually Austriawerft, but Conway's doesn't say where the boats were under construction. Since Austriwerft was headquartered in Trieste it's likely that's where they were built. I've added a sentence to that effect in the article. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Can you remove the "No Photo Available" banner please.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Temoved. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Temoved. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Thanks for another GA review! I've replied to your specific items above. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As expected, great work, Pass--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)