# Talk:SM UB-5

This review is transcluded from Talk:SM UB-5/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): 

The lead mentions that she is broken up twice (choose only one of them), but they also state two different years.
The lead mentions 11 sunk ships, but I only count four in the prose and the list.
I had adapted the text of the lead from that of SM UB-2 and failed to update the second sentence of the lead paragraph with UB-5's (rather than UB-2's) stats and fate. I have now corrected it. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:56, 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: 
I am placing the article on hold until the above comments have been looked upon. Arsenikk (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for another review. I've commented on your objection above. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Great work. I suspected it was a copy-and-paste error, but wanted to be certain. Congratulations with yet another good article. You are making a highly appreciated and valuable contribution to the encyclopædia. Arsenikk (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)