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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 17, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
August 11, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
May 28, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Trains: in UK / Locomotives Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	November 28, 2007
Sel	week 33, 2008

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

GA review (pass)

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
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.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
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):
Overall:
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)[reply]

GA Reassessment

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)[reply]

Done. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an author name for the Railway Magazine article? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, that's fine then. Thanks for addressing these points. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

SR Q class

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Still CN tags after about a week. Delisted. 48JCL ^(talk) 00:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The discussion above 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.