Jump to content

Talk:SR Lord Nelson class

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleSR Lord Nelson 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
DateProcessResult
July 16, 2024Good article nomineeListed
August 11, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
May 14, 2022Good article reassessmentKept
May 8, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Again, a good article. Perhaps more wikiliking but not a pre-requisite of GA, so, pass. The Rambling Man 17:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 

Talk:SR Lord Nelson class/GA1

 

Talk:SR Lord Nelson class/GA2

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) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple passages missing citations. Several existing citations are missing page numbers. I am not convinced that "Southern Railway E-mail Group" is a reliable source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:01, 26 April 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.