Talk:Control car

Trains: in UK / Passenger trains Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	August 17, 2021
Sel	week 34, 2006

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

Mid

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

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

Control car was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: May 23, 2007.

Initial creation

I created this article because there were several different versions on the English Wikipedia, each covering different and sometimes overlapping parts of the same subject. I also translated some information from the German article that wasn't present in any of the English versions.

I did read the comments on the talk pages before doing this, but as these articles are all referring to the exact same type of railroad vehicle, I thought it best to be bold and put everything together in a consistent format.

The only content removed from each individual article was that which was redundant between each article. The DBSO article I left alone because it contains quite a bit of specific information on that class of control car that wouldn't make sense to have in this article. --Cacetudo 17:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After feedback, I re-separated the DVT article. --Cacetudo 13:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination

I have judged this article as passing the GA criteria. One suggestion that I have is that it would be nicer to see the images in-line with the text, rather than as galleries. Good job, JYolkowski // talk 15:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism

With the mention of Cabbages, I realized that that section is not accurate. There were earlier uses of obsolete locomotives converted to cab cars. The most notable ones I can think of are Long Island Railroad ex-Alco FA cab cars. SpaceCaptain 17:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great... please go ahead and edit the article. I for one don't know anything about those LIRR cabbages. Cacetudo 10:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted GA

This article has been delisted for failure to meet current GA criteria. Once the article has been brought up to standards, it may be renominated at WP:GAC. If you have any questions regarding this delisting, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Additionally, if you feel this delisting was made in error, you may request remediation at WP:GA/R. Regards, LaraLove ^T/_C 05:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA?!?! We're light years from it

This article is far behind any "Good article" standard. IMHO:

it should provide a more worldwide perspective.
it should provide more detailed technical informations (perhaps).
- it should be removed the remaining US/UK bias (ex. mentioning data only from those countries for "Command type").
- image placing is mediocre.
- prose and format quality varies from chapter to chapter (for example, the UK section is crappy as for format)

At light of all this, I downgraded the article to the C-class quality assessment. --Attilios (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Control car/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== GA?!?! We're light years from it==

This article is far behind any "Good article" standard. IMHO:

it should provide a more worldwide perspective.
it should provide more detailed technical informations (perhaps).
- it should be removed the remaining US/UK bias (ex. mentioning data only from those countries for "Command type").
- image placing is mediocre.
- prose and format quality varies from chapter to chapter (for example, the UK section is crappy as for format)

At light of all this, I downgraded the article to the C-class quality assessment.

--Attilios (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 21:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Excessive images

This article is not even an article, it's a foamer picturebook. And that's even after I made a major trim [1]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]