Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.
Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 07:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
As the nomination 'slate' has been wiped clean, I wish to reaffirm my support as an editor of this article, and commend it to the Wikipedia Community's scrutiny.--Bulleid Pacific 10:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
“Bulleid incorporated his infamous chain-driven valve gear into the new design” If it’s infamous, then you need to tell us why, and provide a ref to back up “infamous”.- “
The original Southern Railway classifications...” If this is a fact that is disputed (or at least commonly miss-stated), then it needs a ref. “common misconceptions in published works” comes over slightly argumentative. Perhaps something more like “Later published works have often used 'BoB', 'BOB' or 'BofB' instead” would be more neutral. “In the event the loco entered traffic as Bulleid intended.” I assume “entered traffic” is a railway term; “entered service” might be better understood by the majority of readers.“The onset of the Modernisation Plan meant that the remaining 50 locomotives were not rebuilt, and continued in as-built condition until eventual withdrawal from service.” I think some dates would help here.There’s a tendency towards short paragraphs, for example the first paras in Construction History. I’d suggest going through and seeing where adjacent paragraphs will read together nicely.Personally, I think there are quite enough pictures in the tex without the gallery at the end. Almost by defininition, pictures in a gallery aren't illustrating a piece of text
- Comment: It is nice having 'real archive' pictures (the B&W ones), rather than relying on pictures of preserved engines (which may have un-prototypical modifications or liveries). However, I tend to agree with you...
- EdJogg 13:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done – all photos were in Commons already (except the two nameplate pics, and they are still not!) and all have been added to a new Commons category I have created. This has now been linked using {{commonscat}}, and the gallery has been removed. EdJogg 15:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very quiet nom. J.Winklethorpe talk 10:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have undertaken changes suggested. I have also noticed that it is a quiet nom, but I feel it is better not to comment and let nature take its course. I'm sure the other lead editors feel the same.--Bulleid Pacific 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All comments addressed, thanks. I've made a few changes in the prose as I did a final read through; feel free to revert if they're not helpful. I think this is a good job on a technical subject, and so I support. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have undertaken changes suggested. I have also noticed that it is a quiet nom, but I feel it is better not to comment and let nature take its course. I'm sure the other lead editors feel the same.--Bulleid Pacific 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As one of the other (prolific?) contributing editors to this article (recently, at least) I didn't think it was appropriate to say much here, except in response to constructive criticism... EdJogg 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- I have re-edited the first sentence of the "Rebuilding" section. It is important to note that there were several Standard locomotive types introduced between 1951 and 1954, hence I have adopted 'from 1950' rather than 'in 1950'. But I am not convinced that we actually need the following phrase at all "...that had been introduced from 1950." I think the paragraph works fine without it, and interested parties can click the link to discover the dates of introduction.
- I've also had a go at the first paragraph of the "Design features" section to avoid the slightly stilted wording (using 'infamous' twice, for example). I think its still OK.
- EdJogg 23:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nicely written and laid out. Looks comprehensive but trains ain't my forte. I do find "No fewer than 20" a little jarring and would prefer 'twenty' as a word here but I think my opinion would differ from MOS so its not a deal-breaker. Niec article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.