Talk:SR V class/GA1

GA Reassessment
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:SR Class V/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.


 * Where books or journals are being used as references, the relevant pages should also be given.


 * 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.


 * "... the last in a long line operating on Southern metals." May be OK for a specialist article, but this is an encyclopedia that ought to be accessible to a general reader.


 * What is the source for the information given in the table in Naming the locomotives?


 * Imperial to metric conversions are given in the infobox, but not in the article body.


 * The two pictures in the Gallery should be incorporated into the article body.


 * "It represented the last utilisation of this wheel arrangement in Britain, and was regarded as the most powerful class of 4-4-0 in Britain, and possibly the world." Extraordinary claims need extaordinary sources, but this uncited statement in the lead is not supported by anything in the article itself.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, and created own page for locomotive details. Once again, this is another article that I shall work on in future. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent, thanks. I've closed this review now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)