Talk:SM UB-9/GA1

GA Review

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

I have reviewed this article. I found no gaping holes, MOS issues or anything substantial. The article seems to meet all GA criteria.

GA review (see 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):

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DSachan (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 April 2009