Talk:Intermodal container
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Otr500 in topic Article issues and classification
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Series 1
editThe article is about ISO Series 1 containers (it redirects from ISO Series 1 containers), without indicating what 'Series 1' relates to. Are there other series, perhaps an update to the standards? If there are no other series, the article ought to indicate this. FreeFlow99 (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
9 ft 6+1⁄2 in high containers
editI have seen 9 ft 6+1⁄2 in (2,908 mm) high containers as well as 9 ft 6 in (2,896 mm). Peter Horn User talk 04:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Log cradle container
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Not merged. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Make Log cradle container a section of Intermodal container Peter Horn User talk 23:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why? The current structure seems to work as it is. Klbrain (talk) 22:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
Maths
editCube making with help of hard paper of modal 27.34.13.244 (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Article issues and classification
edit- Greeting, Sometimes things happen. This article currently does not pass the B-class criteria. There is a Nov 2021 "This section does not cite any sources" tag and an inline "Citations needed" (Jan 2022) tag. These need addressing to circumvent article reassessment. The "See also" section seems bloated. Three links in the "External links" section, possibly four with consensus, but seven is too many per WP:LINKFARM and needs trimming per WP:ELPOINTS #3. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Reassess the article per fails B-class criteria. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)