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

Reviewer: Anotherclown ( talk · contribs) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Progression

• Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
• Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

• Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
• Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd).
• Linkrot: no dead links [4] (no action req'd)
• Alt text: images all have alt text [5] (no action req'd).
• Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing (seems to be picking up combinations of proper nouns and common words which cannot be avoided) [6] (no action req'd).
• Duplicate links: no duplicate links to be removed (no action req'd).

Criteria

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b ( MoS):

  • The article looks to be very well written to me and I couldn't find any issues with the prose.
    • Minor point: "...heavily engaged in anti-submarine patrols, seeking to locate this and any other U-boats in the area...", perhaps add that the search for U-862 was unsuccessful for completeness? (suggestion only - it is implied to the reader but you might spell it out)
  • No MOS issues I could see.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

  • The article is well referenced to WP:RS.
  • No issues with OR I could see.

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

  • The article is concise and doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
  • All major aspects of the topic seem to be sufficiently covered.

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

  • No issues I could see.

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

  • No issues here.

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:

  • Images seem to be free / PD and have the req'd information / templates.
  • Captions look fine.

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

  • This one looks fine to me. After a complete read through I couldn't find anything that would prevent its promotion. Just one (minor) prose suggestion above but I'll leave that up to you to consider if you want to reword it. Anotherclown ( talk) 22:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Tks again AC -- implemented that suggestion. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply