Talk:SR V class

Day Out with Thomas

Since the SR V Class survived into preservation, can one Class disguise as Vernon for Day out with Thomas? Felix 20:28, 18 July 2006

GA review comments

So far, it's not quite there, here's the checklist with my comments following:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Specific comments:

• The lead describs the locomotive as being "... regarded as the most powerful class ...". This is not mentioned in the article, and WP:LEAD suggests that "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
• Some issues with the prose, I've fixed a couple of things, but here are a couple more points:
  • " ...saved from the cutter's torch... " - not particularly neutrally phrased.
  • "The locomotives were designed by Richard Maunsell, and was heavily influenced ..." needs fixing.
  • "...outshopped ..." - still not clear to the non-expert reader what this means.

More to follow but I'm putting the review on hold in the meantime. The Rambling Man 07:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• "Livery and numbering" section contain four short paragraphs, could be made into two longer paragraphs quite easily which would improve the prose.
• "Remaining artefacts of other class members" should either be a section heading or made into prose to introduce the list.
• Perhaps expand NYMR before using it the first time.
• "uppingham" should be "Uppingham" no doubt.

That's all I have right now. Let me know if you'd like to re-review in the future. The Rambling Man 09:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with my issues so expediently, I'm promoting to GA now. The Rambling Man 16:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:SR Class V/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment. This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

• Where books or journals are being used as references, the relevant pages should also be given.

• It's often easier to separate the References into Notes and Bibliography, to make it easier to provide references to different pages in the same book.

• "... the last in a long line operating on Southern metals." May be OK for a specialist article, but this is an encyclopedia that ought to be accessible to a general reader.

• What is the source for the information given in the table in Naming the locomotives?

• Imperial to metric conversions are given in the infobox, but not in the article body.

• The two pictures in the Gallery should be incorporated into the article body.

• "It represented the last utilisation of this wheel arrangement in Britain, and was regarded as the most powerful class of 4-4-0 in Britain, and possibly the world." Extraordinary claims need extaordinary sources, but this uncited statement in the lead is not supported by anything in the article itself.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, and created own page for locomotive details. Once again, this is another article that I shall work on in future. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks. I've closed this review now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of stock/locomotive lists section in articles.

In order to keep railway locomotive articles tidy, it has been necessary to create a seperate 'appendix' page to display information such as class details, names, preservation locations for named locomotives only. As this was achieved through a successful campaign to prevent a similar page from being deleted from the WC/BB classes, and will ensure that this page may be put up for FA status at a later stage, could any editors contemplating the duplication of this information consider how this might affect the articles chances of improvement in the future. Best regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A trainspotter's observation...

About the wheelspin: one afternoon during the summer of 1955 while my best friend Martin and I aged 11 were trainspotting at Sevenoaks station on Southern Region, "Sevenoaks," 30935 came in, en route from Charing Cross to the coast, Hastings or Dover. We'd seen many other Schools class locos come in and out but this was the first and only time we saw 'ours,' (Sevenoaks) and knew from experience they almost always wheelslipped, and we cautioned the driver accordingly. As the train pulled out slowly and smoothly he turned back to us bellowing "Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!" whereupon the engine went into the most massive wheelspin we'd ever seen; simultaneously we shouted "Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!" back.

Trainspotterkid (talk · contribs) 19:18, 6 July 2009

The above was added to the article today, then removed here. Thoroughly unencyclopaedic, but far too good to waste... EdJogg (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)