Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Bull (locomotive)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] John Bull (locomotive)

The oldest operable steam locomotive in the world (now approaching 175 years old, it was built in 1831) is still on public display at the Smithsonian Institution. With so few examples of early 19th century railroad technology, this piece of equipment is worthy of note. (self-nom; slambo 20:05, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC))

• Not bad. Can the lead be trimmed? Most lead sections usually aren't longer than two (or at the most) three paragraphs. Support.Johnleemk | Talk 20:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll shorten it a little... slambo 20:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC); I've removed some of the extra detail from the intro, leaving it for the article text. slambo 20:56, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Minor object. Quite good, but I have some problems. 1) This train is particularly noteworthy for being the oldest operable locomotive (as you wrote above here as well), yet this is not mentioned in the first paragraph. Doing so would make it immediately clear why this particular locomotive is so important. Only a slight rewrite of the lead would be needed, I think. 2) The article really only has one section (Specs being a table and Timeline being a list), so I would consider dropping the "History" caption and moving all sections up to level two. 3) More important than the previous two, please briefly explain specific terminology where used. For example, it is not at all clear what an 0-4-0 is without reading that article. You could just say "Stephenson built the locomotive originally as an 0-4-0, a locomotive with two axles and four wheels, all of which are driven" or so. Jeronimo 08:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've tried to address your points:

1. I've added verbage to the first paragraph to note that this locomotive is the oldest operable steam locomotive in the world and that the Camden & Amboy was the first railroad built in New Jersey.
2. I've modified section headings as you suggested.
3. I've added brief descriptions of specific terms throughout the article.

Is there anything else that I should update? slambo 12:03, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Support now. Jeronimo 13:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Support - well-written, good use of references. Sayeth 18:46, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. Though the external links used as references could stand to be formatted properly as at Wikipedia:Cite sources. done - Taxman 21:50, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I thought they were correct, but I'll recheck them. The book reference uses Template:Book reference. slambo 21:58, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) -- Ah, I see what you mean. I'll look through my notes tonight after work and update as appropriate. slambo 22:00, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Updated to follow the practices on Wikipedia:Cite sources. slambo 12:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Support - well written, good use of pics. Would be even better with one more current one. Edeans 04:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I found and added a photo that is permissible under fair use as far as I can interpret the Smithsonian's copyright page, but I'd really like to add a photo of the locomotive as it appears in the museum today (since 1981 was over 20 years ago) that is free of fair use restrictions. slambo 13:54, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC).
    • Followed the link and agree with your interpretation of the Smithsonian's policy. I also understand and agree that a pic of the current display is also desirable. Edeans 04:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)