Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject UK Railways. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's UK Railways articles. The article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. Feel free to help out by either helping with assessments or improving articles with a low quality rating.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{ TrainsWikiProject|UK=yes}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:UK Railways articles by quality, which you can use to find articles which need work, as well as the table on the right of this page.

UK Railways articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	4	18	20			43
FL			4	2			6
A				1			1
GA	1	13	43	89			146
B	8	55	191	287		1	542
C	8	62	430	973		7	1,480
Start	2	76	853	6,080		8	7,019
Stub		2	66	5,651		3	5,722
List		6	89	150	8	5	258
Category			2	16	2,119		2,137
Disambig			2	8	69		79
File					65		65
Redirect		3	23	187	548		761
Template		1	4	24	1,387		1,416
NA		1			1		2
Other					5		5
Assessed	20	223	1,725	13,488	4,202	24	19,682
Unassessed			1	3		22	26
Total	20	223	1,726	13,491	4,202	46	19,708
WikiWork factors ( ?)		ω = 77,263			Ω = 5.17

How can I get my article rated?

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of the WikiProject UK Railways 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 this article's talk page.

Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{ TrainsWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page:

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class UK Railways articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class UK Railways articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class UK Railways articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class UK Railways articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class UK Railways articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class UK Railways articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class UK Railways articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class UK Railways articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class UK Railways articles)		List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

Quality scale

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. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and 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. 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. 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. under discussion	Cleopatra (as of June 2018)
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: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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.	List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018)
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.	Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014)
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: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and 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.	Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019)
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 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. 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. 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. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be " brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. 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. 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.	Psychology (as of January 2024)
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.	Wing (as of June 2018)
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. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.	Ball (as of September 2014)
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.	Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014)
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.	List of literary movements

Importance assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{ TrainsWikiProject|UK=yes}} project banner on its talk page:

{{TrainsWikiProject|UK=yes| ... | UK-importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top - The article is about one of the core topics of UK Railways as listed in {{ Train topics}}. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance UK Railways articles
• High - The article is about the basic technologies and infrastructures or the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of UK Railways. Adds articles to Category:High-importance UK Railways articles
• Mid - The article is about a topic within UK Railways that is commonly known outside the UK Railways industry. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance UK Railways articles
• Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within UK Railways and is not generally common knowledge outside the UK Railways industry. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance UK Railways articles

All articles that lack an importance rating are categorized in Category:Unknown-importance UK Railways articles.

Importance scale

Requesting an assessment

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 list it below.

• SimSig Please consider as part of UK railways. It's a simulation of UK signalling so I think it's relevant... whether anybody else does I don't know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.57.240.49 ( talk) 12:13, 16 September 2009

• Already assessed at C grade. Page has no recent updates, and does not need reassessing. Lord Castellan Creed ( talk) 21:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

• North Staffordshire Railway Needs a re-assessment. I have revised article with in-text citations and additional information NtheP ( talk) 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC). reply

• I've reassessed it as B-class/Mid, but it really needs a route diagram. Once you have a route diagram, you might like to consider WP:GAN. I've only given it a very cursory read; I've not checked grammar in depth, but I think it could make GA. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Anglesey Central Railway - reassessed it as B class, possibly it needs some minor copyediting & has the makings of a GA. Pyrotec ( talk) 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC) reply
• Eurostar - It is currently assessed for this project as B class; and I consider this to be a reasonably assessment. Possibly it needs some minor copyediting & has the makings of a GA, but some sections do not comply with WP:verify, so it will need some more work to get through WP:GAN. Pyrotec ( talk) 14:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply

* Intercity 125. Unsigned comments by User:81.111.115.63, 16:07 18 May 2009. I beleive that it is, curretly, correctly assessed as a C-class mid/high importance article. It has the makings of a B-class article, but it currently lacks WP:verify in many of the sections. There is (also) a {flag} to that effect at the top of the article. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

• Hereford Road Skew Bridge - I've worked on it alone all day and it needs someone else to look at it and a reassessment. Thanks. MegaPedant ( talk) 03:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC) - Reassessed as C-class, Mid-importance. Nice work. Pyrotec ( talk) 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply
• Reading Southern railway station - major contributor is me, so I shouldn't allocate a class myself, so would anybody care to rate it? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 20:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Done, rated C-class mid importance with some comments left. Nice work so far. Simply south ( talk) 21:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
• British Rail Class 139 - Currently rated as Start-class low-importance. I don't believe either is accurate any more, but having contributed to the article shouldn't really reassess it myself. There's a lot more information on it now than when it was first rated, and the class is important as a new design which has received some coverage in the West Midlands area at least. Alzarian16 ( talk) 13:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Reassessed as C-class, Mid-importance. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC) reply

• Great Northern Route. Asessed it as Start class. There is a fair amount of detail, but much of it is unreferenced. With improved references, would be C-class. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Wye Valley Railway I've puts lots of work into this article over a long period of time and looking at other articles I think it is higher than a start-class. Last rated in September 2008. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 15:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Reassessed as C-class. It's not far off being a B-class: the text is fine; however using wikipedia as a verifiable reference is not allowed (its used twice) and you've got a fair amount of WP:Overlinking, i.e. not every occurence of Monmouth Troy railway station, for instance but there are quite a few others, needs wikilinking. Better references and less wikilinking would likely give you B-class. Pyrotec ( talk) 15:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Now B-class, removed unsutiable citations and lots of overlinking. WVRMAD• Talk • Guestbook 17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

• Hitchin railway station, Arlesey railway station, Biggleswade railway station, Sandy railway station, St. Neots railway station, Huntingdon railway station - another user recently raised all these from Start (Hitchin, Arlesey) or Stub (others) to B. I then examined St. Neots, and decided to downgrade it to Start (my reasons are explained at its talk page). Please could somebody verify my decision, and also rate the other five? I believe they're better than Stub, but can't decide on Start or C. They're certainly not B, see WP:BCLASS. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Firstly, I agree with you on St. Neots - its definitely not a B-class; and not yet a C-class, I agree with Start-class. Hitchin is just about a C-class, so I've downgraded it from B to C-class. Huntingdon is almost unreferenced, so I've downgraded it from B-class to Start; similarly, Biggleswade & Arlesey are not C-class, let alone B-class, so I've moved down them to Start-class. I've also changed the WP Bedford assessments, it appears to be a case of self-assessment by one of the main contributors. Pyrotec ( talk) 16:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
• I'm not sure what happened here - I was sure there was only five station articles, but now there are six . I've also reassessed Sandy railway station as Start-class. On checking, it seems that the editor concerned only started contributing to wikpedia on 8 May 2010; and while the additional content added to all the articles has improved those articles - none are anywhere near B-class (or C-class in five out of six cases). Pyrotec ( talk) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

• Vale of Rheidol Railway - I have made a number of edits on this subject in recent weeks. Currently start class. Could someone have a look and see whether it would merit a higher grading?  Willsmith3  _{( Talk)} 09:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Reassessed as B-Class, Mid importance Pintodog ( talk) 12:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Tywyn Wharf railway station, Pendre railway station, Rhydyronen railway station, Brynglas railway station, Dolgoch railway station, Abergynolwyn railway station – I have made many edits on these recently. Currently all are Stub/Start class. Could anyone give them higher ratings? WT79 The Engineer ( talk) 17:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• All have been reassessed as C-Class. I wouldn't give them B-Class, due to an over-reliance on the 'Tallyllyn Handbook' for citations, using it at least 4-5 times in each article.

Index · Statistics · Log

April 28, 2024

Renamed

• Arden railway station renamed to Arden station.

Assessed

• Arden railway station, Scotland ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)

April 27, 2024

Reassessed

• Balmossie railway station ( talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. ( rev · t)

April 26, 2024

Reassessed

• Thackley Tunnel ( talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. ( rev · t)

Assessed

• Weedon Viaduct ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. ( rev · t)

April 25, 2024

Renamed

• Airdrie (CR) railway station renamed to Airdrie railway station (Caledonian Railway).
• Bankhead (Lanarkshire) railway station renamed to Bankhead railway station (Lanarkshire).
• Barrhead (New) railway station renamed to Barrhead New railway station.
• Bellshill (NBR) railway station renamed to Bellshill railway station (North British Railway).
• Biggar (Scotland) railway station renamed to Biggar railway station (Scotland).
• Blackwood railway station (Strathclyde) renamed to Blackwood railway station (Lanarkshire).
• South Western Railway (train operating company) renamed to South Western Railway.
• Strathaven North (Old) railway station renamed to Strathaven railway station (1863–1904).
• Uplawmoor (L&A) railway station renamed to Uplawmoor railway station.

Reassessed

• Caldwell railway station ( talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Redirect-Class to Start-Class. ( rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Low-Class. ( rev · t)
• Elton and Orston railway station ( talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. ( rev · t)
• Great Central Railway (heritage railway) ( talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to C-Class. ( rev · t)
• Nottingham & District Tramways Company ( talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to C-Class. ( rev · t)
• Nottingham Victoria railway station ( talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. ( rev · t)
• Uplawmoor (GB&K) railway station ( talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Redirect-Class. ( rev · t) Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. ( rev · t)

Assessed

• Airdrie railway station (Caledonian Railway) ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)
• Bankhead railway station (Lanarkshire) ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)
• Barrhead New railway station ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)
• Bellshill railway station (North British Railway) ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)
• Biggar railway station (Scotland) ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)
• Blackwood railway station (Lanarkshire) ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)
• South Western Railway ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. ( rev · t)
• Strathaven railway station (1863–1904) ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)
• Uplawmoor railway station ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)

April 24, 2024

Reassessed

• Bebside railway station ( talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Redirect-Class. ( rev · t)

April 23, 2024

Renamed

• Strabane (CDR) railway station renamed to Strabane railway station (County Donegal Railways).
• Strabane (GNI) railway station renamed to Strabane railway station (GNRI).

Assessed

• Strabane railway station (County Donegal Railways) ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)
• Strabane railway station (GNRI) ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)