Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LSWR N15 class

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 19:39 June 19, 2008.

LSWR N15 class[edit]

Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because this class of locomotive represented an important link in the lineage of the SR Lord Nelson Class, which had provided inspiration for both the LMS Royal Scot Class and the Maunsell SR Schools Class. Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator - As Bulleid Pacific appears to be busy with other things at present, I'm co-nominating this article. I'll do my best to improve it in line with comments made, but any assistance from other editors would be gratefully received. Also I'll have higher priorites, on and off wiki, at least for the next few days. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 07:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- where the footnotes refer to the same book, it might be neater to remove the book title from the reference, leaving just author and page number. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (article contributor)[reply]
  • Comment -- food for thought. I'll experiment. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (article contributor)[reply]

Support Oppose for now. An interesting and well-researched article; issues resolved. GrahamColmTalk 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues resolved GrahamColmTalk 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but there are many problems with the standard of the prose. Here are some examples:

  • The class had a highly-complex build history that spanned several years of construction from 1919 onwards. -- The onwards is redundant and there are many examples of redundancy in the article.
  • From then on, they became more generally known as the King Arthur class. -- more redundancy.
  • He incorporated a considerable number of improvements, notably to the steam circuit -- Many improvements.
  • Constituting a development of Robert Urie's H15 -- this sounds odd.
  • It was the Urie-designed chimney that was to cause draughting problems, -- This is the first we read of the problem, - The chimney caused problems - is better.
  • a situation revealed with the intensification of the LSWR timetables. The locomotives - - the problem arose?
  • The locomotives gained a reputation of being poor steamers -- for their being
  • with crews reporting steadily falling steam pressure -- and the crews reported
  • which improved efficiency by using less steam to move the piston -- because it used
  • and therefore -- I think one has to go.
  • A larger diameter chimney and blast-pipe were two of the improvements made, resulting in a fast, free-steaming locomotive. -- which resulted
  • What is a valve event?
  • cylinder diameter further reduced -- was further reduced
  • necessitating -- requiring
  • utilised -- used
  • P14 classes, and differed from the Urie batch in using higher boiler pressure and smaller cylinders -- in their use of
  • Whilst -- while
  • their construction in Glasgow gaining them the 'Scotch Arthurs' nickname -- gained them
  • and differed from previous batches in having an Ashford-style cab. -- in their having or and had
  • They were built at Eastleigh in 1926, the smaller tender allowing those fitted to be turned on the shorter turntables to be found on this part -- smaller tender allowed and the to be is redundant.
  • 'From 1926 the N15 class became the first -- In 1926
  • From 1926 the N15 class became the first in Britain to be equipped with smoke deflectors. Several designs were tried, 772 being initially equipped with those of the German style. -- would a semicolon be better here?
  • Upon -- on
  • improving performance yet again -- which further improved performance
  • though -- although
  • regular -- 'common
  • a factor that was commented upon -- which was commented on
  • Despite this, they were to be found in most areas
  • but their high numbers - because there were so many
  • various -- different
  • and the entire class was so modified
  • After a period of 18 months

There are other examples. Please don't just address these, but get a fresh pair of eyes to do some copy-editing. GrahamColmTalk 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Changing to support for a much improved article. Thanks for putting-up with me. GrahamColmTalk 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phew! I'm going to have to wind-up my proof-reading a notch!
    Seriously, though, thank you for providing much food-for-thought. EdJogg (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- OK, found a few bits wrong, altered them, now over to you, Pete! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per image-related issues:
    • Image:SR King Arthur poster 2.jpg: Why is prose alone insufficient for "discussion of construction of the locomotive class" (WP:NFCC#1)? This image does not appear to have anything to do with development; articulation and/or demonstration of an "investment" of £600,000 does not seem to require a fair use image. Image use appears purely decorative (NFCC#8). Image has an incomplete rationale (NFCC#10C and WP:RAT). {{Non-free poster}} license requires "critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". There is no such critical commentary.
    • Image:30783 Sir Cillemere Eastleigh 1950.jpg: Image's source asserts "All Images are copyright. Non commercial use of the images from this section of the Planefacts web site is permitted". We cannot accept non-commercial only images per WP:IUP, WP:TAG and Jimbo.
      • Please read the 'According to this' wikilink below the GNU license, which is an email from the copyright owner granting permission for the image's use on Wikipedia. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:MOS#Captions regarding punctuation for incomplete sentences. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Got rid of source.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand what you mean here. What is a 'bald url'? The articles on SEMG are fairly run-of-the mill stuff for the Southern Railway, with most of the source material being common knowledge, and therefore the site provides a good general overview of various topics. It is quite verifiable.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bald url is something like either [1] or http://www.google.com, where there is no formatting like Google Home Page. As for the source itself, I'm not seeing any sources given for the information, nor any authority claimed for the author. It looks like a personal or fan site, albeit a nice one. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, resolved the issue by using another source. I think the URL is fine now, being only in the external links section. Is there anything else that needs doing? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Personally, I can't see much else wrong with this article, and using the tools provided, the average 18-year old can understand the prose. However, it would help greatly if other editors could actually shed light on any further lapses in prose.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Wow, can you maybe use {{harvnb}} instead of the current referencing method of including the book title in every reference? It makes the references long and hard to read.
  • "Arthur class [1]" — remove extra space
  • In "Locomotive weight", the dashes should be en dashes per WP:DASH

Gary King (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, references have been simplified for the benefit of the reader. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - image copyrights look good. Kelly hi! 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All the above comments appear to have been addressed. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, much improved! --Laser brain (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Oppose, a good start but some fit and finish required. Examples:[reply]
Issues resolved. --Laser brain (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prose issues:
      • "The class had a complex build history ..." It no longer has a history?
      • "The Southern Railway's publicity department gave the locomotives names associated with Arthurian legend, becoming the King Arthur Class." The phrase dangling at the end is not in a good place, as it appears to modify "Arthurian legend".
      • Terms like "newly formed" and "well received" should be hyphenated; check the whole article.
      • "This was sufficient to achieve extended running on the Southern's Western section, where there were no water troughs to replenish water in the tender without stopping." Avoid beginning sentences with "This" in reference to a previous idea. This what?
      • "When the third batch was under construction ..." While works better here.
    • MoS: Terms should appear in double quotes, not single quotes (example: 'Eastleigh Arthurs', 'Scotch Arthurs', 'stovepipe', and more); plus, you have a mixture of the two. --Laser brain (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response -- the highlighted prose issues have been tackled, although there are still a few phrases I've found that would benefit from re-wording (eg "express passenger stable" !) The exception is the hyphenation, which I am usually hot on, but I need to re-read the article with this aspect in mind.
The issue of quotes is not one I have examined before, so it is a good point to raise. WP:PUNC recommends use of double-quotes, since these do not affect the search mechanism, although this is also American usage (which may be coincidence?). I have corrected all that I could see, and would agree that double-quotes work well in the majority of cases.
Thank you for your input -- EdJogg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response -- Yes, I have just done a second-check over EdJogg's proof-read, and I believe that all issues highlighted here have been raised. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All of my issues have been addressed and it seems almost all of the other issues raised as well. Well done. Comments I peer reviewed this and am glad to how it has improved since. Here are a few more suggestions for improvement:
    • Why not include the full range of years of construction in the lead, so perhaps The class has a complex build history spanning several years of construction from 1919 [to 1926].
    • Does this combination of two sentences work (2nd paragraph of lead)? Following the Grouping of railway companies in 1923, the LSWR became part of the Southern Railway, whose publicity department gave the locomotives names associated with Arthurian legend; the N15s became known as the King Arthur Class.[2] Avoids three sentences in a row with "Southern Railway"
    • Bogie (as in tenders) should be linked at its first occurrence, in the Urie N15s section (not in the next section)
    • Last three sentences of the first paragraph of "Scotch" Arthurs and Bulleid's modifications need a reference
    • Link cwt to Hundredweight in first instance Further detail differences comprised weight variation: 80 tons 19 cwt (82.2 t) for Nos. 448–452 ... as most readers will have no idea what cwt mean
    • Since Sir Lamiel is the only surviving member and only color photo, could its livery be mentioned in the Livery section (or perhaps in Preservation)?

I am close to supporting as this looks very good overall. I made a few minor edits too - please revert if they introduced errors Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response -- Ok, I think I have done this... Please highlight any more concerns. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Looks good. I linked cwt just now - I also note tons are not linked (and know Imperial and US tons were different, as are Metric tonnes, so a link here would also help). Just a suggestion - still support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments A train article! How fun! I'm more of a model train person myself - :) Anyway, here are my suggestions for improvement and my questions:

  • Why is there a footnote at the top of the infobox title? That is a bit unsightly. Is there any better place to put it?
  • The LSWR N15 class was a British 2-cylinder 4-6-0 express passenger steam locomotive designed by Robert W. Urie. - Could we link "2-cylinder" to the appropriate page? This goes for engine terms throughout the article - the first time words such as "piston" appear, they should be wikilinked. This helps readers such as myself who play with trains to understand the article.
  • Thanks for the links, but could we link "2-cylinder" as well? Awadewit (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The class has a complex build history spanning several years of construction from 1919 - and ending in? This whole sentence probably needs to be reworked. Is the only part of the history that is complex the build? Is the history over? Etc.
  • The first examples were constructed for the London and South Western Railway (LSWR), where they worked heavy express trains to the South Coast ports and further west to Exeter. - "they worked" seems a bit odd - the examples worked?
  • Following the Grouping of railway companies in 1923, the LSWR became part of the Southern Railway. - Are we sure "Grouping" should be capitalized since the "Grouping Act" itself isn't mentioned?
  • I noticed that all of the directional words ("North", "South", "South-West", etc.) are capitalized. Is this BE? In AE, we would not capitalize them.
  • All train-specific words, such as "bogie tender", should be linked or explained the first time they are used in the article. Please do a quick check for this - I found myself wondering "what is that?" quite often as I was reading.
  • The chimney was found to cause draughting problems in service. - Did the company do anything to rectify this problem?
  • Variants of this cab became standard for all new locomotives and converted tank engines. - Made in Britain? Made by the company Some caveat is needed here!
  • In 1926 the N15 class became the first in Britain equipped with smoke deflectors; several designs were tried, with no. 772 initially-fitted with those of the German style - confusing
  • When Oliver Bulleid was appointed CME in 1937, five locomotives were modified with Lemaître's multiple-jet blastpipe and wide-diameter chimney, resulting in further improvements in performance that enabled these locomotives to operate more efficiently. - Is this sentence related to the earlier smoke deflector sentence? If not, the paragraph as a whole needs to be rewritten, as it consists of two, unconnected sentences.
  • Another criticism was the lack of stability at high speeds, which was commented-upon by Nigel Gresley when they were used on the former Great Northern main line for trials against the LNER Class A1s during the 1920s - Please tell the reader who Nigel Gresley is (why should we trust what he says?) and what are these trials? Help us out a bit!
  • The LNER trials coincided with the visit of number 449 Sir Torre to the Darlington Railway Centenary celebrations in July 1925 - Please explain the context of this sentence to the reader a bit more - it just seems like a factoid at the moment.
  • The first withdrawal, 30754 The Green Knight, began the slow running-down of the class, but because so many engines were constructed, they outlasted the Lord Nelson class by one month. - Again, please put this comparison in context for the reader. I know nothing about the Lord Nelson class - what does it mean to compare the two?
  • Would it be possible to obtain a schematic of the locomotive's various designs? That seems like it would be a very helpful addition to the article.
  • The Livery and numbering descriptions are very confusing. Explaining what a livery is might help! Also, any way to add an image to these descriptions? That would also help.
  • It would, of course, be nice to have the "References" listed in a standard reference style, such as MLA, Chicago, or APA. The rules for how to do this can easily be found on the web. Right now, the reference list is a little disorienting and it is hard to tell, for example, if the Clarke entry is a journal article or not.

I hope these suggestions are helpful. I did some minor copy editing as I was reading - please fix any mistakes I might have inadvertently introduced. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for so promptly attending to my suggestions, despite the mayhem that you must currently be living through. I think we can all sympathize. Awadewit (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response A -- This has been subject to debate, and despite it looking untidy, it saves having to reference every detail in the infobox, which would mean complaints from other quarters. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that the note was for the infobox. Awadewit (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response B -- "Grouping" is the generally accepted historical term for this momentous event, though sohrt of writing the entire history of the "Grouping" in this article, I think it is best to leave it as it is. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response C -- Unfortunately this is an issue that may not be addressed because of copyright. Ideally, there would be several schematic diagrams, but the changes are generally more internal than external in the majority of cases, except for the smoke-deflector, blastpipe and cab modifications... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response -- Thank you for your evident interest in the article. I hope the vast majority of your issues have now been addressed. Cheers! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note that the nominator has not edited in more than two weeks, so I'm unsure what we can expect for the rest of this nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh. And I just spent an hour copy editing and reviewing the article. *sigh* Awadewit (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lovely. The nominator hasn't been on since June 4. Does anyone want to take over this nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never feel capable of taking over something that I know don't know anything about. Could we ask someone at WikiProject Trains? Awadewit (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I queried Tivedshambo and the talk page at FAC; would like to see someone take this over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laser_brain just alerted me to your concerns. (To be fair, this page had only one edit between 4th and 13th June!! And now I come back and there's millions -- eek!) The nominator is currently studying at university and I presume that he is undertaking exams at present, hence his lack of recent edits. This year his edits have been in bursts of intense activity.
I will see what I can do regarding the comments raised recently. I have proof-read the article a number of times, so it is becoming more necessary for independent parties to highlight the faults that I am becoming increasingly immune to seeing. Where there are cites missing I may not be able to help, however I am fortunate in having a very good Model Rail article about the locos which explains the reasoning behind most of the design decisions, so hopefully I will be able to join the remaining dots. Unfortunately, I do not have a huge amount of editing time at present, but I will do what I can...
EdJogg (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have not been able to edit over the last few weeks as I no longer have internet. This situation will change in two weeks time, however. I am taking note of your comments, and rest assured, they will be dealt with. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have proof-read Awadewit's edits (as requested) and 'had a go' at the livery section (which I had previously not tackled). Please feel free to re-review this section. Colour images would be useful but are extremely rare (and finding suitably-licenced ones even rarer!) It would help if the various railway articles contained adequate descriptions of the liveries which we could link to -- in many cases each would fill an article on its own! A link to livery should be sufficient to explain what one is, although 'lining' is a little more tricky to describe. Other recent comments here will be addressed in the next session... -- EdJogg (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK, I've done a once-over with the suggestions above. I once again wish to stress that my access to internet will be intermittent over the next week due to our internet contract being terminated. This is because I live in a student house, and it is the time of that great exodus into the wide world... Anyway, keep up the good work those who are working on this article in my absence. Cheers, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have linked cylinder in the lead. The distinction between 2-cylinder, 3-cylinder and 4-cylinder locomotives is not really discussed in the steam locomotive article, so I can't do much about that bit. However, I did discover that it included a section called steam circuit, so I have created a redirect to it and linked it from the N15 article. Hope this helps. EdJogg (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/LSWR_N15_class&oldid=1138465452"