Talk:SM UB-3/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- 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)
- 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).
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- 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)
- Pass/Fail:
