# Talk:SM UB-3

This review is transcluded from Talk:SM UB-3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
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)
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): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
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): 

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)