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)