Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of

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

Index · Statistics · Log

Transport articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		1	3	8		2	14
FL			1	2			3
A			1	1			2
GA		3	10	54		30	97
B	7	29	58	131		221	446
C	13	67	148	588		805	1,621
Start	5	73	258	1,621		1,777	3,734
Stub		11	64	1,037		1,344	2,456
List	2	2	21	95	4	147	271
Category				2	8,631		8,633
Disambig					93		93
File					75		75
Portal					58		58
Project			1		63		64
Template				1	289		290
NA		2	5	50	412		469
Other	1				113		114
Assessed	28	188	570	3,590	9,738	4,326	18,440
Unassessed				12		2,530	2,542
Total	28	188	570	3,602	9,738	6,856	20,982

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 Transport WikiProject 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.

Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Transport}} 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 Transport articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Transport articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Transport articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Transport articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Transport articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Transport articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Transport articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Transport articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Transport articles)		List

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

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 four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations . (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for 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, colour ; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has are labeled accordingly . (c) Accessibility. It 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 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 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 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 assessments

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

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):

Importance scale

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.

1. Sustainable Transportation was not previously listed in project transport. Quotes from this article turn up all over the web so I have listed it, and edited the article to add references (does this entitle me to remove the "please add references" tag?). It still has problems in my view but would merit assessment. It's linked to the Sustainability Portal but not to the transport portal at this stage. Travelplanner (talk) 11:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Port of Paulsboro is a new transportion-related article (albeit not passenger) Djflem (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Montana Department of Transportation. I recently expanded this article and believe it should now be assessed again. Knoah {User*Talk*Contribs*Projects} 18:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 23, 2024

Renamed

• DigiYatra renamed to Digi Yatra
  .
• Ritwik Ghatak metro station renamed to Ritwik Ghatak metro station.

Reassessed

• Bangsamoro Airways (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Companhia Carris Porto-Alegrense (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
• Pate Museum of Transportation (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Pompey's campaign against the pirates (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
• Rubén Callisaya (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to GA-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• Digi Yatra (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Historic vehicles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:History of transport in Azerbaijan (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Maritime companies by country (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Motor vehicles manufactured in Canada (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Nažidla bus accident (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Norwich park and ride (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Organizations investigating transport accidents and incidents (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Penang Hill cable car (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:People involved in transport accidents or incidents (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Railway tunnels in Akershus (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Railway tunnels in Buskerud (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Railway tunnels in Vestfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Ratings in the Merchant Navy (United Kingdom) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Road transport buildings and structures (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Road transport in South Korea (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Road tunnels in Akershus (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Road tunnels in Buskerud (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Road tunnels in Finnmark (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Road tunnels in Telemark (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Road tunnels in Troms (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Road tunnels in Vestfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Roman roads in Judaea (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Transport in Taizhou, Zhejiang (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Transport of Korea under Japanese rule (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Tunnels completed in 2024 (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Tunnels in Akershus (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Tunnels in Buskerud (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Tunnels in Finnmark (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Tunnels in Telemark (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Tunnels in Troms (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Tunnels in Vestfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Tunnels in Østfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Unmanned surface vehicles by country (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Vehicle manufacturing companies established in 1804 (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Water transport buildings and structures (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

• Dorval R. Carter, Jr. (talk) removed.
• Draft:Germany device (Deutschlandgerät) (talk) removed.
• Category:Tunnels completed in 1480 (talk) removed.
• Category:Tunnels completed in 1679 (talk) removed.

April 22, 2024

Renamed

• Draft:Dorval R. Carter, Jr.
  .

Reassessed

• Bristol Harbour (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from GA-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Commercial Passenger Vehicles Victoria (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• Category:1562 in transport (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:American steamboat people (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Dorval R. Carter, Jr. (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• G&SWR shipping services (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

April 21, 2024

Renamed

• Draft:Nissan TD engine renamed to Nissan TD engine
  .

• Category:AITO vehicles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Bangsamoro Airways (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Baoshan Bridge station (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Bus transport in Finnmark (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Bus transport in Telemark (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Bus transport in Troms (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Bus transport in Østfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:DFSK vehicles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Delhi Transport Corporation (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t
  )
• Category:Ferry transport in Akershus (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Ferry transport in Buskerud (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Ferry transport in Finnmark (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Ferry transport in Troms (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Ferry transport in Vestfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Ferry transport in Østfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Foxtron vehicles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:JMEV vehicles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Land Public Transport Agency (Malaysia) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Legendary vehicles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Li Auto vehicles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Local transport plan (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Missing vehicles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Oakland vehicles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Public transport in Buskerud (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Public transport in Finnmark (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Public transport in Telemark (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Public transport in Troms (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Public transport in Vestfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Public transport in Østfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Rising Auto vehicles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Road transport in Telemark (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Road transport in Troms (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Road transport in Vestfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Road transport in Østfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Rupdia railway station (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Switzerland bus transport succession modules (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Transport in Cádiz (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Transport in Russia by autonomous okrug (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Transport in Russia by krai (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Transport in Russia by republic (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Transport in the Telugu states (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Transport operators of Taiwan (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Water transport in Akershus (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Water transport in Buskerud (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Water transport in Finnmark (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Water transport in Vestfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Water transport in Østfold (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Yuanhang vehicles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)