Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the Trains WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's rail transport articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Trains}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Rail transport articles by quality and Category:Rail transport articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
Project participants talk
Project banner (doc) {{TWP}} talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Welcome message talk
Departments
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
Daily new article search search criteria talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Rail transport in Germany talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk
This box:

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
How can I get my article rated?
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?
Anyone is free to add or change the rating of an article.
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

Instructions

[edit]

Quality assessments

[edit]

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Trains}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds them to the FA-Class rail transport articles category)  FA
FL (for featured lists only; adds them to the FL-Class rail transport articles category)  FL
A (for articles that passed a formal peer review only; adds them to the A-Class rail transport articles category)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class rail transport articles category)  GA
B (for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class rail transport articles category) B
C (for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class rail transport articles category) C
Start (for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class rail transport articles category) Start
Stub (for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class rail transport articles category) Stub
List (for stand-alone lists; adds them to the List-Class rail transport articles category) List
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to the NA-Class rail transport pages category) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed rail transport articles category) ???

For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:

FM (for featured media only; adds them to the FM-Class rail transport pages category)  FM
Category (for categories; adds them to the Category-Class rail transport pages category) Category
Draft (for drafts; adds them to the Draft-Class rail transport pages category) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds them to the File-Class rail transport pages category) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds them to the Portal-Class rail transport pages category) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds them to the Project-Class rail transport pages category) Project
Template (for templates and modules; adds them to the Template-Class rail transport pages category) Template

The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:

Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds them to the Disambig-Class rail transport pages category) Disambig
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds them to the Redirect-Class rail transport pages category) Redirect

After assessing an article's quality, any comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.

Quality scale

[edit]
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of London Underground stations
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Brian Robertson, 1st Baron Robertson of Oakridge
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. 190th Street station
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. South Shore Line
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. London and North Eastern Railway
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. Rail transport operations
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. 14WE
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. 750 mm gauge railways
??? Article quality has not yet been assessed. Articles for which a valid quality rating has not yet been provided are listed in this category. A quality parameter should be assigned according to the assessment department of the WikiProject.

Importance assessment

[edit]

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Trains}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Trains|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance rail transport articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance rail transport articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance rail transport articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance rail transport articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance rail transport articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance rail transport articles)  ??? 

Importance scale

[edit]
WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. Train
 High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. First transcontinental railroad
 Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Ulster and Delaware Railroad
 Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. Jordanhill railway station
 NA Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. Category:Trains
 ??? Subject importance has not yet been assessed.

Requesting an assessment

[edit]

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to add it at the bottom of the list below.

  1. San Francisco Historic Trolley Festival (new article)
     Done assessed as C class. i would suggest combining related level 2 headers together and use level 3 and 4 headings. 1.02 editor (T/C) 09:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Montreal and Southern Counties Railway
     Done reassessed as B class, low importance. – Iain Bell (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kominato Station
     Done Currently rated GA, no change in classification needed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. GW Train Regio
     Done Assessment unchanged from start. The article could be improved with translated text from the Czech version. Lots of references, but rather sparse text. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Altoona Subdivision
     Done reassessed as start class 1.02 editor (T/C) 13:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cheshire Lines Committee Significant revision
     Done Reassessed as B class. Close to GA level in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cheshire Midland Railway Significant revision
     Done Assessment unchanged from the current C class. Someone likely upgraded the article class but did not indicate it here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Georgia Railroad strike of 1909 - Recently created article, looking for assessment. Thanks, JJonahJackalope (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done assessed as B class, low importance 1.02 editor (T/C) 04:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Indian locomotive class WDM-2 have been substantially improved since they were last assessed.Requesting reassessment Thanks, Hdmanohar (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Reassessed as C-Class. The article is significantly extensive, but lacks citations in several places. It also requires formatting in sections. Footy2000 (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Putra Heights LRT station
     Done Reassessed as C class. Much improved, but needs some cleanup still. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Bandar Puteri LRT station
     Done Reassessed as C class. Needs some minor improvements still. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Larissa railway station
     Done Assessment unchanged from C class. Needs some cleanup still, there are a number of spelling and grammar issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. East San Fernando Valley Transit Corridor
     Done Classified as C class and low importance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Eastside Transit Corridor
     Done Reassessed as C class. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. National Capital Trolley Museum was last assessed in 2006 and has had significant changes since then.
     Done Reassessed as C class. With more references and a bit more content it could be B class. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Los Angeles Pacific Railroad Significant revision
     Done Reassessed as B class. An argument could be made for GA, but I'm not going to upgrade it that high unilaterally. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. History of rail transport in Thailand Significant amount of information added since last assessment.
     Done Reassessed as C class. The article could use some more references still. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Vande Bharat Express hasn't been assessed yet and it has been improved substantially since last month.
     Done Reassessed as B class. Some minor issues with spelling and grammar but very much improved since the previous assessment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. High-speed rail in India hasn't been assessed since 2016. It has been improved significantly ever since.
     Done Assessment unchanged from C class. The article is very extensive, but needs irrelevant material removed and significant improvement in spelling and grammar, as well as some reorganization. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Train 20 unassessed since creation
     Done Assessed as start class, low importance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. LTM_51 Sources and explanations added. No more information to be expected. Main items from sources mentioned --Ol hogger (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Assessment unchanged from start. To reach C class, an article must have section headings and better follow the manual of style than the article does currently. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Trams in Częstochowa Expanded history, updated, added inline refs.
     Done Reassessed as C-class. Some minor issues with spelling and grammar; could be expanded with information from the Polish article. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. SUW 2000 Greatly expanded, updated, added inline refs.
     Done Reassessed as B-class. Re-drawn images from the Talk page would be very welcome in the article itself. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Tramways in Pabianice Greatly expanded, updated, added inline refs.Assessment unchanged from C class.
     Done Assessment unchanged from Start class. Needs some expansion. And possibly a name change to Łódź–Pabianice Line. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Tramways in Zgierz Greatly expanded, updated, added inline refs.
     Done Reassessed as Start class. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Urban rail transit in India has been improved a lot since last assessment.
     Done; assessed as B-Class. XtraJovial (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Grand River Railway has been improved considerably since last assessment. Any feedback would also be welcome. Julius177 (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done and assessed as B-Class. XtraJovial (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Léman Express Practically entirely rewritten (and the network itself entirely redone) since last assessment. Tschuy (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done; assessed as Start-Class. For a C-Class (or something higher), I recommend that more citations be added where possible; many claims appear to be entirely unsourced. XtraJovial (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Ottawa station has been expanded a great deal since the last assessment. Ottawajin (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done; assessed as B-Class. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Edmonton Radial Railway Significantly expanded it beyond its previous stub status. CplKlinger (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Assessment unchanged from B-class. Should be able to achieve GA-status fairly easy; by trimming and creating spin-offs. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Cologne Stadtbahn Expanded a lot since last assessment. Jan Lukas 22 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Assessment unchanged from B-class. Should be able to achieve GA-status with reasonable effort. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Kothapalli-Manoharabad line new rail line in development in India, page has been created and content added but hasn't been rated yet.
     Done Assessment unchanged from the current start class. Requires a lot of copy editing and formatting. See WP:BCE and WP:CITESTYLE for formatting citations. Footy2000 (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Kunisada Station First time making major change to an article thus interested in outside opinions
     Done Assessment unchanged from the current C-Class. It has the very basic qualities of a C-Class article and has barely made the cut. It requires expansion of sections, addition of sources wherever possible.
  34. SL Gunma Minakami (new article)
  35. Chicago Rail Link (used to a stub and I expanded it since last assessment)
     Done assessed as C-Class. Significant changes since last assessment. Needs citations at some places. Equipment section can have more details. Use of images for Visual aids will also help.
  36. Regionalverkehr Bern-Solothurn Was rated as a stub in 2009. It has been expanded significantly since then.
     Done Reassessed as Start class. Needs more text to reach C-class. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Stadler METRO (new article)
     Done Reassessed as C-Class. Has text, images and a table. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  38. SBB-CFF-FFS A 3/5 (Had overseen major expansion by EditorGirlAL07 (talk · contribs) on 23 November 2024, using information from the corresponding article in German.)
     Done Reassessed as Start class. Sentence about Preservation would fit better in the lead. KatVanHuis (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  39. High Desert Corridor Stub article that I created a little while ago that needs assessment.
     Done Done a while ago this list was never subsequently updated MelonLost (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  40. GWR 2900 Class 2999 Lady of Legend Made lots of modifications to it, could do with an assessment when possible :) @KatVanHuis: @Footy2000:
     Done Thanks Kat! MelonLost (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Tenbury and Bewdley Railway Me again! This article could do with a reassessment when possible. Thanks! MelonLost (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oasis Rail Transit Changed the name and made significant updates to maintain WP:NPOV and source all claims. A review would be appreciated! Yojo98 (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment log

[edit]
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.


June 2, 2026

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

June 1, 2026

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

May 31, 2026

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

May 30, 2026

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

May 29, 2026

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

May 28, 2026

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

May 27, 2026

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Assessment&oldid=1349274219"