Talk:SM UB-2/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

here
for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
    What makes uboat.net
    reliable
    ?
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy
    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )
    :
  7. 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)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review. I've replied above to your note about sourcing. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]