Talk:British Rail Class 47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article British Rail Class 47 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.
Trains Portal
Sel week 37, 2007
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)
High This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
High Importance: high within UK Railways WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport in Scotland.
High Importance: high within Transport in Scotland WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of the Locomotives task force.

Contents

[edit] GA failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have failed the article at this time. The main reason for doing so is the lack of inline citations which is a recent requirement in the GA criteria. All information that may be questioned over its verifiability must be cited. Also, the "Preservation" and "Re-engineering" sections should be expanded upon or merged into alternate sections since they contain very little information. According to the Manual of Style, for "Fleet Details", only Fleet should be capitalized. Before renominating, look over the GA criteria and consider getting a peer review to see how else the article could be improved. If you do not agree with this review then you can seek an alternate review at Wikipedia:Good article review. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 06:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems found with your article

I have read the article and have found problems with it, they are listed below:

  • Your references are not in the correct layout try looking at the Ford BA Falcon article to get the idea of what references should look like.
  • Try making the introduction bigger so it includes information from the rest of the article.
  • Don’t just use imperial measurements, also use metric measurements, in your article it states “straight-six unit producing 2,750bhp…” try including metric measurements so it converts Horsepower to Kilowatts.
  • Chose a good picture to go at the top of the article on the right, so readers get a good idea of what the train looks like.
  • Put the incidents section at the bottom part of the article just above the Fleet details.

If you have any questions about this, then please go to my talk page and leave a message.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review comments

  • "The most noticeable result of the dieselisation of Britain's railways following the Modernisation Plan of the late 1950s," - a little confused! did dieselisation form part of the modernisation plan or did it come after the modernisation plan. Also, the wikilink for "modernisation plan" is british rail and i don't think is very appropriate
    • removed this sentence as it's too confusing and also the pointless wikilink - it's dealt with in the next paragraph anyway
Please provide a link or point to a link for the phrase - "making them easily the most numerous class of British mainline diesel"
  • " though five were fitted with a V12 12LVA24 power unit (see separate article - British Rail Class 48)." - i think this needs tweaking. how, i am not sure.** moved this to "Origins" section where it reads more smoothly and the wikilink is better placed
  • "still in mainline use today" - removed 'mainline'
    • put it back, and changed to "mainline and private" - I wanted to emphasise that a number were still running on the mainline
  • "They were numbered D1500-D1999, and D1100-D1111." - this sentence needs explanation
    • expanded the sentence to explain it
  • Need references for
    • "This significantly improved reliability by reducing stresses on the power plant, whilst not causing a noticeable reduction in performance."
    • "Two locomotives, 47798 Prince William and 47799 Prince Henry, were dedicated to use on the Royal Train, and were designated as Class 47/7c."
      • Both done
  • "Reduction of the fleet only started in earnest as this fluid situation stabilised and freight companies started ordering their own new locomotive fleets." - need more data here. how did the overall figure come down from 300+ to 31.
    • expanded explanation a bit - the actual mechanics of the fleet reductions are *very* convoluted so I've summarised them
  • " only around 30 examples are currently" - the exact number from list attached is 31. also, why use of "example"?
    • fixed the discrepancy, though the number fluctuates so often that it may be worth leaving tyhe sentence as "around 30". 'Example' is railway jargon and I've changed it.
  • "47208 became the fifth Class 47 to be withdrawn" - but the section has only 2 listed prior to this. please explain the withrdrawal of the other two.
    • Done this
  • In the 'Fleet details' table, can you please add the data on the number of engines built.
    • Done

Please revert back to me once you address these comments and i shall re-review the article for GA. I think that this article has sufficient data for FAC --Kalyan 12:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is good to go for GA. --Kalyan 09:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contents bar

Why has the contents/navigation bar been 'turned off'? --Jorvik 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It broke the formatting of the page. Try removing the first __NOTOC__ line and previewing the results, and you'll see what I mean. ELIMINATORJR 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't really break the article layout, and what it does can be used to good advantage with a bit of lateral thinking, but you are breaking Wikipedia's formatting! (SouthernElectric 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Falcon, Lion (and unmentioned DP2)

These locomotives were not prototypes for the Bush Type 4, the design of which pre-dates those prototypes - just look at the dates of introduction in any reference book! These locomotives were manufactures prototypes for what became the class 50s - English Electric winning the contract, but having the cab front design changed by the BRB design panel decree. (SouthernElectric 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

  • No, they were not prototypes for Cl.47, and the article does not say that. They were prototypes for a possible lightweight type 4 design. However the BRB decided to go with the Class 47 programme before the prototypes could be assessed - exactly as the article says. You are correct in saying DP2 is certainly irrelevant here, which is why it isn't mentioned. ELIMINATORJR 16:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but the way it's written that is exactly what is being suggested, the paragraph is under the "Origins" sub-heading which is totally wrong, (as you and I know) the origins of the Brush Type 4 pre date these three prototypes, in fact I can't see any reason to even mention the prototypes as they have little to do with the Brush Type 4 apart from sharing body styling. (SouthernElectric 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Excessive use of web-site citations

I've been mulling if this over for a few days and really do feel I need to voice my concerns; Looking at the references one sees just a long list of web citations, there is only two non web citations in a list of 41, there seems to be to much reliance on these web citations (such as "Class47.com"). I'm sure that most if not all information will be available elsewhere - if not, how does one know if Class47.com etc. have got the correct information and this article is thus not just republishing web-myth, if a web citation can't be backed up with a third-party printed publication citation should a citation even be offered? It's not as though there are not print or magazine sources - see WP:V#SELF and thus the possibility of someone placing a {{self-published}} template at the head, I'm tempted to do so myself but feel that I should raise my concerns here first. SouthernElectric 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, you're probably right, although I do know that Class47.com get their information from original BR information sources; in other words TOPS archives. I probably need to research some print resources; however as you'll see from my talk page my time is quite limited at the moment. Having said that, web citations are better than none; and if you look at the version of the article before I re-wrote it, there were no references at all.ELIMINATORJR 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moved editorial comment

I removed the following comment made by 81.79.65.0 (talk · contribs) from the article text:

On the contrary One railway and FM rail still operate a plentiful fleet.

Assuming that this is true, it will need to be better written in an encyclopedic style with appropriate citations. Slambo (Speak) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not even true. ONE don't own Class 47s, they hire them occasionally; and FM Rail no longer exists. ELIMINATORJR 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
One always have at least one Cotswold Rail 47 on hire, to be used as a Thunderbird. It's often stabled at Colchester. Still yet to experience the famed Brush thrash on a rescue mission though, myself, although they are fairly regular (at least a couple of times a month) occurences. Muchclag (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)