Talk:NSB Class 64

NSB Class 64 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 5, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Trains Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 49, 2011

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norway

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:NSB Class 64/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article is reasonably well written. I made some copy-edits for gammar and clarity.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I assume good faith for off-line sources, which appear reliable. No evidence of OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Sufficient detail and focus
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
One image used, licensed and captioned.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
This article sufficiently meets the criteria so I am happy to list it. Congratulations. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic