Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I have done a copyedit. In particular, there were a number of places where the punctuation came after the ref tag. Also, MOS:CAPS states that all-caps should not be used, even when it appears in the original, since all-caps is a typographical consideration, not one of orthography. The article is slightly underlinked, particularly regarding technical terms such as tender, boiler, smokebox etc. There are many places one-sentence paragraphs. This should be avoided in good, encyclopædic prose. In general, the prose did not seem to have been thoroughly copyeditited, which is highly recommended before nominating for GA. The copyedit I have performed is more than can be expenced by a GA nominator, and the lack of MoS compliance is sufficiently poor that it could have been used to fail the article.
   • In infoboxes, it is recommended to use abbreviations for units.
   • The milestones section does not impress me much. Instead of a list of years and achievements, create a prose section that describes the key accomplishments. As the article stands, despite its length, it lacks much on the actual building of the engine, save this list of years. Again, under the section "Changes from original", avoid making a list of modification; instead, write it out in prose. This way it is also easier to make comments on those areas that need it. What are "OLE regulations"? The term in neither described, nor wikilinked, until two paragraphs further down.
   • I removed the paragraph: "As such, despite not realising Porta's dream of producing an efficient viable second-generation locomotive, capable of challenging the oil-dependent, modern-day economy, the Tornado eventually proved its detractors wrong by proving that a main line steam locomotive could still be built in Britain." It reads poorly, says virtually nothing, is stacked with weasel words, and is not referenced.
   • Would it not be better if the sections "tender", "boiler" and "motiona and wheelset" were made === and made subordinate "design".
   • This is a very vauge claim: "No standard gauge boiler had been built in Britain since the 1960s, at least not for such a large engine." Either a boiler has been made, or it has not; this sentence contradicts itself.
   • There is repeated use of abbreviations, without stating what they mean, or even linking to them. OLE, ORR, HMRI etc. all mean nothing to a person not deeply into British railways. This article will be read by many people with little knowledge of rail transport, as well as many people, though interested in railways, may be from other parts of the world, and will have little knowledge of British terminology.
   • The lead says it will be back to Darlington after ten years, while the text sais five years. Numbers under ten (optionally twelve) should always be spelled.
   • The article is very long, maybe as much as twice as long as ideal. While I will not this agains the article in the GA review, I would recommend the authors to look at summary style to see if it is possible to demerge part of the article into new article, and just summarize it here.
   • There are far too many external links. Both the article and the Commons are filled with images, so why do we need any external image links at all? Two of the external links are dead (404), the ones from therailwaychannel.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are some stray refs at the end of the page. Move them into the appropriate place in the article. Some references are not in {{cite}} templates.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold. The authors have seven days to resolve the issues mentioned, for the article to pass. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, I didn't nominate it for GA, as I personally didn't think it would pass. Incidentally, I had started a major rewrite a few days ago offline, which already addresses many of the issues, and I'll incorporate the ones I haven't caught from this review with thanks (you are correct, it's never had a proper copyedit, I am usually out of time after simply updating it). However, I don't specifically agree with some issues raised:

• The milestones list is quite helpfull imo, and is not meant to just cover construction. Lists are helpfull at times, especially for timelines
• I thought construction was well covered in the article, under Manufacturing?
  • It is; this was just a note to myself while I went through the article that I forgot to cross out (I was doing it offline over several days). Sorry about that.
• External image links: While commons is comprehensive, most are not of the quality of those on the EL list
  • Wikipedia:External links is fairly rigid on this: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum." and "try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website". Some would say this amount of links is even a violation of WP:NOT. While I will leave the exact number of external links to the discretion of the authors, the current length is in violation with WP:EL, and the article cannot pass GA in this state.
• On demerging, I am scratching my head as to what can be feasibly spun out as stand alone articles? E.g. Construction of Tornado or Testing of Tornado, neither seems a good basis for a sub-article. In the new draft, I am at least implementing notes, which brings the length of the main text down by reducing non-relevant info. Other than moving Fundraising to the Trust article maybe, I am at a loss as to what else could be spun out, and I am loath to actually remove any information just for length issues, as it is all pretty good info (respecting anybody's assessment of what might be trivial info) - again some of which I am porting to notes. Rather than on hold. I suggest postpone and maybe relist when I get the rewrite done.

MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I also could not see any local sub-sections, but in a way I felt that the article was some-what of an information overload. If you want to rewrite the article, and do not want the time pressure, I would suggest waiting a day for other comments, and then I can 'fail' the article, and you renominate it again. Instead, think of this as a peer review. One more idea, is that in general (there will always be exceptions), the image should be right/left-aligned so the train is heading towards the center of the page. Right now it looks a bit messy due this and the images not being stacked every other right/left. I will let you try to sort it out during your rewriting. Otherwise, I must say I am impressed with the work that has gone into the article, and how much there can be said about a single locomotive that has not even been in service for a year. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Since there have been no objections in a day, I will fail the article. I believe it is much better if it is given a thorough copyedit and clean-up. When this is done, I hope to see it as a GA nomination again. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)