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.

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes[edit]

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]

~~Comments~~Support

~~“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]

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.