Talk:SR Q class
![]() | SR Q class was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA review (pass)
[edit]- 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.
- a (fair representation):
b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- It is stable.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned):
b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):
c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
I spell checked it (please try to do this before nomination!) and made a couple of minor grammar changes, but now I feel it's suitable for GA. The Rambling Man 17:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
[edit]This discussion is transcluded from Talk:SR Class Q/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.
I have only one concern about this article, which I hope can be easily addressed within the hold period.
- Where books or journals are being used as references, the relevant pages should also be given. At present, page numbers are given for some, but not for others.
- It's often easier to separate the References into Notes and Bibliography, to make it easier to provide references to different pages in the same book.
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Is there an author name for the Railway Magazine article? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No, as its an editorial team report, and no one individual has claimed responsibility for it.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK, that's fine then. Thanks for addressing these points. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Still CN tags after about a week. Delisted. 48JCL (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Significant portions of this article are missing citations, and one of the existing citations is missing page numbers. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)