Talk:Fairy Queen (locomotive)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 09:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• This may not come as a surprise, but I also have a problem with the term "irreplaceable". If they cannot be replaced, how on earth were they then replaced? The ILT link does not use this term, but instead "which are extremely rare", which is both more accurate and a more encyclopedic term. An encyclopedia must be much more careful with its wording than many other sources; we cannot use "irreplaceable" as a metaphor, but instead can only use it in its literal sense, which obviously was not the case here. One of the sources states that it is "as good as irreplaceable", which is not the same as "irreplaceable".

 Done Replaced by "discovered that rare locomotive parts that were "as good as irreplaceable" had been stolen". Skinsmoke (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• It is good that the article discusses whether it is the oldest or not. The lead mentions the Guinness Book of Records, but this claim also needs to be mentioned in the body.

 Done Skinsmoke (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• What is a "deluxe train"?

 Done Replaced by luxury train. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• The lead needs to expanded/rewritten to summarize the article. As it stands, it does not summarize the pre-restoration history of the locomotive, nor does it summarize its specifications.

 Done Skinsmoke (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Important pieces of information in the lead are not mentioned in the body. Information in the lead is to be repeated in the body.

 Done Skinsmoke (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• The infobox should stick to either using metric or imperial units as a primary measurement. It is rather chaotic as it stands now. Not sure if this is withing the GA criteria scope, but it does pull the article down a bit.

All measurements changed to show metric system first, which is a requirement at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This has subsequently been reverted by Andy Dingley, who is insisting that those measurements where we have a source for the imperial must place the imperial first. We have a problem as the only reliable source is the Indian Railways site, which has a mixture of metric and imperial measurements: weight, water capacity, wheel diameter and speed are in metric, but power output and cylinder size are in imperial, while gauge is in both. The guidance for writing articles about India is to make metric measurements primary, but the guidance for the United Kingdom advises imperial measurements should be first for some fields (however, most United Kingdom articles will be mixed as the British system is mixed). This locomotive was built in the United Kingdom (using imperial measurements), but has served its entire working life in India, where most measurements are now quoted in metric. What would you advise? Skinsmoke (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Redrose64 has suggested "Personally I would put the sourced measurement into {{convert}}, and if that measurement be metric, add |disp=flip so that the imperial is displayed first. For example, {{convert|1|kg|lb|disp=flip}} yields 2.2 pounds (1 kg)". However, that doesn't resolve the conflict with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• An important part of information is lacking entirely: the locomotive's specifications. Listing these in the infobox is far from sufficient. For instance look at NSB Di 3 for an example of how this can be done.

 Done I have tried to use the suggested link as a model, but have never done one of these before. I am not an expert in engineering (or railways), and so not all the terms make a massive amount of sense to me. I hope I've got it right, but any further advice would be welcome. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• And as such, the information in the infobox is not referenced.

 Done No longer a problem, as all cited in the text. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note that quotes are not to be in italics. I have removed this myself as it is beyond the scope of the GA criteria.

 Done Noted. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• What makes refs 1 and 8 reliable?

 Done The Kitson and Company page has been replaced as a source. The Shankar page ("National Rail Museum") is now reduced to a single citation. Although the text of this site fails the reliability test, this remaining citation is of the image of the Guinness certificate, which should be acceptable. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise the refs look good.

I'm a little unhappy with the sourcing for Express being built in Bristol. The only sources I can find (and there are several, but none of them especially reliable for this information: a few fan sites and several newspaper articles that are clearly quoting a press release) state that the locomotive was built in Leeds, and give a build number at Kitson, Thompson and Hewitson. The only source for it being built in Bristol is the Ian Allan book from 1966, which I don't have access to, and which is not online. I have searched extensively online to find a link between Express and Stothert, Slaughter and Company, but cannot find any mention at all. Personally, in view of this conflict I would be happier with "A number of similar locomotives were built around the same time as the "Fairy Queen". One of these, "Express", has been preserved at..." Several sources claim Express as the older of the two locomotives, so I'm not sure we need the rather pointy justification of why it is the older of the two. Surely just the cited statement that it is older, and therefore a contender for oldest operating steam locomotive (something which is not claimed for Fairy Queen) would suffice. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Express being built by Stothert's is one of the best-sourced statements in the whole article, and one of the few that's not dependent upon very low quality websites. Do you claim that Ahrons is vague over this issue? Or that Ahrons is unreliable as a source? Apart from Express carrying typical Stothert cylinder covers with the cast-in "S", which admittedly might have been swapped over the years, as multiple engines of a compatible class were often parts-stripped for the others. This article's weakest feature is still its major dependence upon sites like pitara.com, which is a site for kids, written by a non-specialist. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunetly there is no image, but there is little which can be done about that.

Agreed. I have searched the web for a free image, with no luck whatever. Have even tried contacting the operating company, but with no response, other than an acknowledgement. A real shame, as there are some spectacular copyrighted images out there. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There is still a way left before the article reaches GA. I am placing on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Units shouldn't be changed just because India has now switched to using metric. Most of these units were originally set out in Imperial units, and in simple round numbers of such. Those should be preserved as they were originally.

Have asked for advice above. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Also the 12" stroke is now wrong and should be 22" (and neither of these are 300mm). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't you just change it Andy, considering that the citation has changed? Now done. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

300mm is what the conversion template gives for 12 inches. What would you suggest we use as an alternative? Skinsmoke (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The conversion template will give whatever precision it is requested to give. 305mm is of course a closer (and appropriate) conversion.

The problem with conversion of "designed" numbers like this is that the natural tendency of designers is to design originally in round numbers, then for the conversions to be "less round". It's a significant and encyclopedic detail to note that this locomotive was designed in inches, not millimetres, so we should preserve that distinction. Where (as in this article) an inaccurately rounded number of "300mm" is presented first, then the implication is that the locomotive was designed in metric, and that the imperial 12" is now only an approximation. That's the worst sort of WP rewriting facts to conform to a styleguide, commonplace though that is at WP. Similarly retaining the obviously wrong 12" stroke figure because it's given in a poor source, rather than either finding the correct figure with a full RS, using the 22" figure from Ahrons (a reputable source), even noting that this was given for the overall class and is questioned by other sources, should you feel this to be necessary, or in extremis not giving the piston stroke at all, as it a credible figure can't be sourced to our demanded standards. WP:V never trumps truth, even if its absence does reduce what we can claim as truth. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I am awarding the article good article status. Nice work! Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)