Talk:U-20 class submarine/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- 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:
- Pass/Fail:
Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass this article to GA status. My only comment for further improvement is that you rely almost completely on two book sources, and it might be good to get some more diversity, if possible. However, I understand that this is probably not a subject that a lot of authors write about, so you've probably exhausted the sources that you know about :) Just saying, if you stumble upon another source in the future, it would probably be good to add it in. Dana boomer (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)