Talk:Top Gear Race to the North

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Top Gear Race to the North/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 13:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Interesting topic. I'll take a look over the next few days. SilkTork *^YES! 13:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments

These are observations as I read through. I will give a summary when finished.

• Images are copyright tagged and appropriately captioned, though I have some concerns about the double image in the Filming and broadcast section, with the long caption. Also, I note that there are five images of the train in the article, and little else. It is not a GA requirement, and will pass with the current selection of images, though if some other images could be found, that might help. Perhaps, select only one image in the top right, and use the others to add variety to the article layout. Another consideration might be to reducing some of the train images. Perhaps only use one of the train passing through Newcastle. SilkTork *^YES! 10:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Prose. I've read through the opening paragraphs of the first section, Background, a few times, and I'm still not clear what is being said. I assume that "contest" refers to the Top Gear event, though it is not clear. "Past-time" is an awkward construction that suggests hobby. I am not sure why the section goes directly into a discussion on the history of Railway companies, as it hasn't yet been explained what is happening. Paragraph 2 starts talking about resurgence for the railways, then goes into what appears to be a timetabled train service, then mentions a specific locomotive before finishing with reference to two different classes of locomotive. From some awareness of the topic picked up from glancing through the article I am assuming that this paragraph intends to indicate the class of locomotive that Top Gear used for the Race - but it's not clear. SilkTork *^YES! 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There are a number of short / one sentence paragraphs, such as in the Filming and broadcast section. This disturbs the flow for the reader. Consider merging paragraphs, expanding with more detail, or removing if not important. SilkTork *^YES! 10:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Gricer needs explaining per WP:Jargon. SilkTork *^YES! 11:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Focus. The first section gives too much background information on the history of train companies. One or two sentences making reference to train companies competing to provide the fastest London to Scotland service would be appropriate for a general encyclopedia article on a TV programme. The first section needs a refocus. Perhaps starting with the 4th paragraph ("The idea and much of the organisation of the race is credited to Graeme Bunker..."). SilkTork *^YES! 10:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The May 2009 Coronation railtour section would be better suited for the LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado article. SilkTork *^YES! 10:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• NPOV. Article appears to be fair and balanced. It is a neutral account of the programme and doesn't engage in inappropriate praise or criticism. Good work! SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Referencing. I haven't checked sources yet, but this appears to be a well cited article. It mainly relies on two magazine articles, one in Steam Railway Magazine, Issue 363, and one in Heritage Railway Magazine, Issue 124, though it has a range of other sources as well. I like the idea of presenting the sources as primary and secondary - I don't recall seeing that previously. I am uncertain on the reliance on the primary source of the tv programme itself for some of the commentary for example "As seen on the programme, Hammond was delayed as he changed into his biker's leathers and was delayed again as he struggled to start the Black Shadow," and the Progress on the A1 road section. I am aware that film articles rely on this method quite a lot for their plot sections, and I don't think this use of the primary source will impact on the GA criteria, though if there are secondary sources which can be used instead, that would be good, as I think this is flying close to some of the do nots in WP:PRIMARY. SilkTork *^YES! 11:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Broad/balanced. The article mainly focuses on the train. I think there is a sense that the train was the major element in the show, as it was organised around the train; however, a general reader might reasonably expect more details on the car and the motorbike. I suggest that the Background section would be about setting up the programme - perhaps called Production or Development, and a section called Vehicles could give information on each of the vehicles used. SilkTork *^YES! 11:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• MoS. Other than the few examples noted above, the article meets the GA MoS requirements. SilkTork *^YES! 11:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On hold

This is an interesting topic, and a fair amount of good research has been done to gather some decent information. The presentation of the material is mostly adequate and often very good, though attention could be given in places in order to assist the general reader. The Background section needs reshaping into one on the production/development of the show, and a new section on the vehicles created. While the main aspect of show itself was the train, the focus of this article needs to broaden to include the other two vehicles. The writing is at times very good - most of the Race section is quite gripping, and is among some of the best writing on the encyclopedia. However, there are sections which are less clear, and the writing in the Background sections needs tightening, and some of the short paragraphs (including some in the Race section) need attention to ensure flow. Referencing appears generally good, though to create more confidence for the reader secondary sources should be sought for those statements which at the moment rely on editors' observation of the primary source. SilkTork *^YES! 11:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On hold for seven days to allow editors to:

• Rewrite background section
• Add more information on the car and motorbike
• Tidy prose flow
• Seek more sources if possible
• Trim back some of the attention on the train

Any questions please give me a ping on my talkpage. SilkTork *^YES! 11:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel there should be references added on when speed restrictions were added around the country, the whole of the progress section, and the speed and limitations of the train. Should the programme itself be a ref? Simply south (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fail

Despite notifying 3 projects and 4 significant contributors of what needed to be done, there has been no work on this article for the seven days of the hold, apart from a cite tag. Failing for points noted above - prose, cites and focus. When the work has been done, the article can be renominated. SilkTork *^YES! 09:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How does this make sense ?

"The decision of Jeremy Clarkson to choose to take the train for the race surprised many people, who expected him to take the Jaguar"

It says elsewhere, they drew lots to determine who would take the train, car and motorbike. So how did Clarkson "decide" to "choose" to take the train ?Eregli bob (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Elizabethan Express

The BBC has previously filmed London to Edinburgh train journeys, such as the British Transport Films (BTF) production Elizabethan Express.

I'm not quite sure how to revise this, but British Transport Films (albeit state funded) were not really part of the BBC. How about "The challenge recreated the non-stop post-war runs from London to Edinburgh, as featured in the 1952 British Transport Film Elizabethan Express. Bob talk 13:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tweaked. [1] Jheald (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

SKE 7

While it is (or may well be) true that the Jaguar XK120 was the "fasted production car" when it was built, SKE 7 is hardly the car that left the Factory back in those days.

She has disk brakes on the front (and I think on the rear too, last time I saw her up the air I did not look) when all XK120's build had drum brakes all-round.

She also has a 4.2L engine and the gear box that came with the 4.2 engine, which, I think, came from a Jaguar XJ6 series 3 (XK120's were 3.4 according to Jaguar XK120).

As a result of having the "wrong engine and gearbox" it took a bit of work with a hammer and Oxyacetylene to get the exhaust to fit without fouling the engine's sump, as no one makes exhausts for a 4.2 XK120 when they are all 3.2L.

However last time I saw her she was truly lovely.

Sadly her owner (and the person responsible for her restoration) has now passed away. :(

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.108.9 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC) 

1952 Black Shadow and 1954 XK120

As title, DVLA Vehicle Enquiry. --81.129.18.164 (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/tornado-locomotive-wins-award

  Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Top Gear Race to the North. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090625123627/http://www.bfi.org.uk:80/nftva/catalogues/film/4/604/1080 to http://www.bfi.org.uk/nftva/catalogues/film/4/604/1080
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090624021448/http://www.imeche.org:80/industries/prizeaward/engineering-heritage-award.htm to http://www.imeche.org/industries/prizeaward/engineering-heritage-award.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)