Wikipedia:Peer review/LNER Class A1/A3/archive1

LNER Class A1/A3

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the team of editors believe that the article could develop further, becoming an FA article, especially due to the Historical significance of the type of locomotive. The article requires a general review to make sure that the material is accessable by all members of the Wikipedia community.

Thanks, Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a disambiguation page with two listings. Did you intend to list one of those two? Fg2 (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'correct' article title is LNER Class A1/A3 and I don't think that anyone has previously spotted that what we actually have is an article called 'A3' which is a sub-page of a page called 'LNER Class A1'!! Ho-hum. Any suggestions how we get out of this mess? Presumably a page move would be in order, and then we can resubmit for FA...

(contributing editor pp BulleidPacific) EdJogg (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if Geometry guy can fix this - the semi automated peer review is incorrect then too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this by hand: articles with slashes in the title are tricky to handle. Geometry guy 18:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks G guy, I ran the semi automated PR by hand and pasted it in the right place, so it works too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. I have added a comment on its talk page, so other editors can make a future decision as to whether a page move is appropriate. EdJogg (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, a trip to London, and all hell breaks loose! I'm glad the mess has been dealt with, sorry for any inconvenience.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfsich comments: Well now that all of that is sorted out, here are some suggestions for improvement:

I note that the first sentence of the article uses LNER Classes A1 and A3, so perhaps that is the way to go?

Doing... -- has been adjusted to match article title, but may benefit from further refinement and/or renaming maybe? -- EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not seem to summarize the whole article - my rule of thumb is that if there is a section header, then it should at least be mentioned in the lead (even if only a word or phrase), but there is nothing on Preservation of Fiction in the lead. See WP:LEAD
Since LNER is in the title, would it be possible to explain what it means earlier in the lead than the end of the second sentence?

Done -- EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also is it LNER or L.N.E.R. (header, with period) - either way, be consistent.

Done -- all now 'LNER' (no dots), except within references where quoting titles. EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to define abreviations before first use, so GNR needs to follow Great Northern Rail~~road~~way (GNR), for example.

Done -- with the exception of ACFI, which is a manufacturer's name that links to a DAB page (obviously added for this article!) Couldn't see how to sensibly re-word this. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sections are unreferenced: Preservation, Wartime service - this last is also a very short section - could it be combined with the following section? Or expanded?
This sentence makes no sense at the end However, by incorporating the Great-Western-inspired valve modifications, the economies in coal and water consumption achieved were such that the 180 psi Pacifics could undertake long-distance non-stop runs that were previously possible.
It might just be the late hour, but I am having trouble following some the jargon here - can it be put more into context? I also wonder if there some sort of diagram of the Gresley conjugated valve gear and three cylinder arrangement.
Typo in ref 28 Clay, John F. 'How good were the original Gresley Pacifies

Done -- EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch, What jargon is bothering you? You should be able to follow the blue links to Gresley conjugated gear at least.--John of Paris (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon is perhaps not the best choice of words. However, I have now read this part of the article three times and the linked Gresley conjugated gear article twice, and I understand that they were used to avoid maintenance on inaccessible middle wheels and I think I have kind of an idea as to how they worked (the wheels were in sync at 120 angles to each other), but I am still fuzzy on the details and I have almost no idea how they differed from the other designs. I realize this is likely all clear as a bell to rail fans, but my point is that it is not as clear for me (and I like steam engines, just don't know all the details). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]