This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i would like feedback as to how to get it up to a Featured Article standard. I will work on it over the next few months!
I believe it's doing quite well, and it's all ready a GA!
AdThanksVance, BG7 16:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Finetooth
Here are a few suggestions for improvement:
- Images should draw the reader's eye into the page rather than out beyond the margins. The layout of this article could be improved by aiming the trains into the page. The train in the infobox is going into the page, but the engine in the "In service" section is headed out of the page and should be placed on the right. Some of the trains in the lower sections are ideally positioned, and some are not.
- Ok, seems simple enough! I'll also get some more images while i'm at it!
- I would suggest removing the gallery of trains from the article and instead adding an external link to the existing gallery, part of British Rail TOPS Locomotive classes, on the Commons. That gallery could be expanded if it does not already include everything that is needed.
- Sure. It doesn't really add anything! I'll incorporate some of the better images into the text.
- The gadget that puts the Reference section in a window will probably not get through FAC. It makes the page vary from the encyclopedia's normal look and forces readers to figure out the gadget. It also makes the references harder to check at a glance for consistency, redundancy, and broadness of sourcing.
- Ok, i'll change it to a type used on some other FAs.
Done
- Ok, i'll change it to a type used on some other FAs.
- The verifiability of the claims made in the article could be significantly improved if citations of the Class47.com site and other personal web sites were backed up by references to published peer-reviewed sources. References should include the author's name if known; in the case of Class47.com, that appears to be Paul Appleby, and his name should be added to each member of this group of citations. The same is true of Roy's Railway Page if Roy's full name can be found. In general, personal web pages and blogs are weak sources. I don't think these will survive scrutiny at FAC. Lots of other possibilities for finding train information exist such as government publications, scientific papers, manufacturers' manuals, newspapers, journals, and books. These might be found on-line or off-line or both.
- No problems. There a loads out there, and I can get access to official documents as well!
- Most Wikipedia footnotes are placed immediately after a punctuation mark with no space in between. Most of the footnote numbers in this article appear before the punctuation and should be re-located.
- This was going to be one of the first things I was going tackle - thanks for the reminder!
- Unless the official formal name of an engine is 47/X (where X stands for any number), I'd recommend changing that to 47-X. The front slash is more ambiguous than the hyphen; 47/8 might be a mathematical fraction, for example.
- Not sure whether it's official, but all British Rail locos use it - 66/0, 25/2 etc. XX-X is not normally seen (if ever!)
- I would consider expanding most or all of the incidents in the "Incidents" list to paragraph length and turning the list into ordinary prose.
- Ok cool - i'll find some more info on them!
- Many of them already have their own articles, no need to duplicate the info here. Black Kite 23:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok cool - i'll find some more info on them!
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hello,
- Not sure if I should reply here, but I have done withing your points!
- Thanks!
- BG7 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)