# Talk:London Underground departmental stock

Suitably referenced, with inline citations
Reasonable coverage - no obvious omissions or inaccuracies
Defined structure, with adequate lead
Reasonably well written for grammer and flow
Supporting materials - Infobox, images
Appropriately understandable
I have assessed the article against the criteria for B-class. The following needs to be addressed.

Lead does not adequately summarise the contents of the article.  Done
I am therefore rating it at C-class for the moment. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

All issues have been addressed, so I am rating it as B-class. Bob1960evens (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be list-class? Simply south...... catching SNOWballs for just 6 years  13:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Unsure what this means ... Bob1960evens (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Assessment#Quality scale or Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment#Quality scale (they're much the same). But to me, the article is not a list (a list would be something like List of London Transport locomotives), therefore the normal stub/start/c/b/ga/a/fa scale should be used. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with RedRose.  Reading the article, however, it would be nice to have greater diversity of sources.  Andrew327 22:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I thought 5 separate sources was quite reasonable for an article about such a subject. Had you any other sources in mind? Bob1960evens (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)