Talk:BR Standard Class 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Toolbox
Good article BR Standard Class 7 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
October 23, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Trains Portal
Sel week 3, 2008
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Low Importance: low within UK Railways WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport in Scotland.
Low Importance: low within Transport in Scotland WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force.

[edit] Link to Disambiguation page

The link to Mercury goes to a disambiguation page. I'd have fixed it myself, but I don't know which type of Mercury the train was named after.

Alan Pascoe 21:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the mythology meaning was intended, so I corrected the page on that basis. I judge this based on the use of other names from mythology. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Another well researched and nicely written article that deserves to be listed as a GA.

You knew that there was going to be a "but" though, so here it is:

  • "55 examples were constructed ...". Sentences shouldn't start with numbers, and they weren't examples, they were the real McCoy. So why not say something like "Fifty-five were constructed ...", or rewrite the sentence to avoid starting it with a number?
  • "The Britannias were based upon several previous locomotive designs ..". Britannia is a class (singular) so surely it ought to say something like "The Brittania class was based ..."?
  • "The class saw service until several were withdrawn in 1967, and the last was withdrawn in 1968". Does that mean that "The class was in service until 1968, when the last locomotive was withdrawn"?
  • The Background section starts off by saying: "The locomotive exchanges that took place in 1948 ...". What locomotive exchanges? I think you need to give just a little bit of background as to what was happening at that time rather than just dropping the reader in at the deep end.
  • Why is "Big Four" in italics?
  • "'Pacific' type" surely ought to be Pacific-type?
  • What's a "wheel splasher"? The reader is given a link to an axle, which most would probably understand anyway, but not to a wheel splasher.
  • "The footplate was designed around the requirements of the operating crews, with a mock-up being constructed at Crewe for consultation purposes". Presumably this was some kind of a usability test, not just a meeting at Crewe for "consultation purposes"?
  • "Designed at the drawing offices of Derby Works ..." is a bit too much detail, and may not even be true. I'd suggest "Designed at British Railways' Derby Works ..."
  • "Repairs to the class were undertaken at Crewe, Swindon and Doncaster Works until the Modernisation Plan began to emerge." What does "began to emerge" mean?
  • "... the class was granted the power classification 7MT" Were classes really "granted"? Weren't the locos assessed in some way as to their power classification?
  • The lead says that "Only number 70000 has seen service on the railway network since 1967." But the Operational details section says that "A succession of bulk withdrawals ensued in 1967, and the last, number 70013 Oliver Cromwell, took place at the very end of steam operation in Britain during 1968." Seems inconsistent on the face of it.

Not too much to sort out there though I don't think, so I'm placing this article on hold. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up

  • "Negative feedback was however received from operating departments, notably on the Western Region, primarily out of preference for GWR-designed locomotive stock, and as such, Old Oak Common and Plymouth Laira depots proclaimed the class was surplus to requirements." That's unreferenced and sounds like POV on the face of it.
  • "Repairs to the class were undertaken at Crewe, Swindon and Doncaster Works until the Modernisation Plan began to preclude regular overhaul of locomotives. Overhauls became exclusive to Crewe Works ..." I still don't understand this. Why did the the plan preclude regular overhaul?

--Malleus Fatuarum 00:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Y Done--Bulleid Pacific 13:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


That'll do do for me, nice job! --Malleus Fatuarum 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)