Talk:SR Q class/GA1

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 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)