Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LSWR N15 class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] LSWR N15 class

Toolbox

Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because this class of locomotive represented an important link in the lineage of the SR Lord Nelson Class, which had provided inspiration for both the LMS Royal Scot Class and the Maunsell SR Schools Class. Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment -- where the footnotes refer to the same book, it might be neater to remove the book title from the reference, leaving just author and page number. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (article contributor)
  • Comment -- food for thought. I'll experiment. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (article contributor)

Support Oppose for now. An interesting and well-researched article; issues resolved. GrahamColmTalk 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment -- OK, found a few bits wrong, altered them, now over to you, Pete! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Got rid of source.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't understand what you mean here. What is a 'bald url'? The articles on SEMG are fairly run-of-the mill stuff for the Southern Railway, with most of the source material being common knowledge, and therefore the site provides a good general overview of various topics. It is quite verifiable.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
A bald url is something like either [1] or http://www.google.com, where there is no formatting like Google Home Page. As for the source itself, I'm not seeing any sources given for the information, nor any authority claimed for the author. It looks like a personal or fan site, albeit a nice one. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, resolved the issue by using another source. I think the URL is fine now, being only in the external links section. Is there anything else that needs doing? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for prose (see Graham). Mojska all you want 14:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please remember that this is not a vote but an attempt to achieve consensus. My opinions may change in the light of discussions taking place on this page. GrahamColmTalk 17:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Personally, I can't see much else wrong with this article, and using the tools provided, the average 18-year old can understand the prose. However, it would help greatly if other editors could actually shed light on any further lapses in prose.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Wow, can you maybe use {{harvnb}} instead of the current referencing method of including the book title in every reference? It makes the references long and hard to read.
  • "Arthur class [1]" — remove extra space
  • In "Locomotive weight", the dashes should be en dashes per WP:DASH

Gary King (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, references have been simplified for the benefit of the reader. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - image copyrights look good. Kelly hi! 20:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)