Talk:S&DJR 7F 2-8-0

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much of the information for this was obtained from Herring, P., (2000) Classic British Steam Locomotives Leicester: Abbeydale Press. The reference has been removed from the article for some reason. 18:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. The problem is twofold (1) I've got the book (my ex-girlfriend gave it to me) and although it gives a good overview of the whole of the modern preservation scene, and its entries are at the level we're aiming at, it's not really an academic work (hardly any older photos), and it doesn't go into any further detail that the reader requires. Also, it's not specifically about this class. I could also try to reference The New Observer's Book of British Steam Locomotives which I also have and that is bit different, but still pretty much the same. Dunc|☺ 18:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I merely quoted the source that I used. The whole point of Wikipedia is that people can come up with something better. Chevin 08:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

No, the idea of Wikipedia is to write an introduction to the subject. If readers are interested they can then go out and buy the books mentioned in the references section. That book is not useful in that sense. It is a reasonable introduction to British locomotive design, but it isn't going to tell the modeller whether (say) the leading pony truck has brakes on or not. We're never going to get to the level of Jenkinson & Essery; I am probably the most knowledgeable around here and I know diddlysquat compared to some people I know. There might be a book on these engines coming out by Bob Essery, David Hunt et al, with the Derby drawing office drawings in as part of their Midland Engines series, but I know not of a book on this class specifically, which is what should be mentioned. Dunc|☺ 08:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes but you are supposed to cite the references you use. Perhaps it would be better to list it as "References and further reading" Chevin 17:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well mention it here then, if you must, not on the page itself. It's not further reading if it doesn't tell you any more that's in the article. It's not a good reference unless it's authoratative, and two A5 pages in a flowery book, most of which are pictures are not anywhere near or atleast getting there. Do you actually have any decent railway books? Dunc|☺ 18:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not one of those comic sites that infest the web. Its articles should be grounded in solid research, supported by the literature. We have already had the the New Scientist (I think) complaining about the accuracy of Wikipedia. So I have cited my sources as far as possible. I have started some new pieces without, but marked them as stubs in the hope that someone more knowledgeable will come along. As I say, there possibly should be two subsections to a page eg:

[edit] References used

• Herring, P., (2000) Classic British Steam Locomotives Leicester: Abbeydale Press.

[edit] Further reading

• H.C. Casserley (1985) Observer's Book of British Steam Locomotives Frederick Warne.

If someone was able to find more accurate information from a better book they could substitute it (unless I was quoting someone verbatim, in which copyright fair use would be involved).

Of course there is a limit to the detail in each article - some of the scientific pages are models for incomprehensibilty - but they should have a little depth, like hinting why some designs of loco were better for some applications than others, why certain courses of action were taken or persisted with. Chevin 09:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)