Talk:British Rail Class 180/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk)  22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Some comments: There is fair amount to work on here; once this is done I will take a final look at it, and it should then be pretty close to passing GAN. Arsenikk (talk)  22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Coradia (train)" link at the top is not appropriate; it is fine to say that this class is derived from Coradia, but not formatted like this.
 * The first sentence is far too long, and doesn't even have a comma. At minimum, move the location of production somewhere else.
 * The second sentence makes it seem like the class is no longer in use.
 * "Adelante" and "Zephyrs" should be in boldface, in addition to being in italics
 * The lead is very short, and does not summarize the article. Among other things, it completely lacks technical details (that it is fair to allow a disproportional amount of the lead space, in relation to the relative space in the body).
 * Ranges need to be specified with an endash (–), not a hyphen (-).
 * The specifications lacks a number of information I am expecting. In particular, there is no mention of the unit being five-car. Other information lacking in the body—it is not sufficient that it is also found in the infobox—is number of bogies (particularly now that Jacobs bogie have become popular, this is critical information), the number of powered axles (is there one motor per axle or is there one motor that drives both axles on the same bogie), the power output of each motor, maximum speed and safety systems. Acceleration would be nice, as would information on running in multiple, but this information is not always easy to get, so it is not necessary if not available.
 * "hydrodynamic braking" should link to "dynamic braking"
 * The table under fleet should be converted to prose. I am uncertain what is meant by driving motor and intermediate motor. These should not be capitalized.
 * The "fleet" section is very short; I would personally have merged "description" into just one header, but I'll leave this up to the authors. In general, I feel there is a more than ideal number of sections.
 * After fragments indicating dates, such as "In 2008," always end with a comma.
 * "high speed trains" currently redirect to "high-speed rail". Make this dab to the right place.
 * Numbers from ten (optionally twelve) and down should always be written out, unless to avid style mix with larger digital numbers.
 * "10 car" should have a hyphen (10-car).
 * If "Grand Northern" has never been used as a brand name, I don't think it is likely there will ever be an article about it, so delink it.
 * The information under "fleet details" shouldn't be in parenthesis.
 * The article lacks background information on how the class came to be and was ordered, and how it related to the other Coradia trains.
 * Large parts of the article are unreferenced.
 * Ref 10, 16, 17 and 18 are dead.
 * The article has now been on hold for five weeks, and several significant issues have yet to be addressed (although the article is better now than before the review). Since there are no comments here and still unresolved issues (most importantly unreferenced claims), I am failing the article. Feel free to renominate after all issues have been seen too. Arsenikk (talk)  08:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of references have been added since you reviewed the article. Which claims in particular would you say still need some? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In particular the last part of "First Hull Trains", the first two paragraphs under "Grand Central" and most of "First Great Western". There is also the issue of dashes and a table which should be converted to prose (along with an explanation of "intermediate motor"). It is normal during a GAN that if the author disagrees or wants to comment any of the aspects of the reviewers comments (reviewers aren't perfect either) that notes are made in the /GA1 talk page. Similarly a note there (and/or at the reviewers talk page) when the article is "finished" with respect to changed related to the review. It is generally courteous to make a note on the talk page if the nominator will be prohibited from working on the article within the first week of the review. If you are new to the process, you may not have realized this, so keep it in mind to the next time. Otherwise, fixed up the article following all the points above and renominate it at GAN, and someone will look at it again, because it is close to being passed now. Arsenikk (talk)  12:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know any of this until you mentioned it here. It sounds like I messed up pretty badly - sorry about that. Regarding the missing references, I can see your point regarding Grand Central and Hull Trains, but I don't agree with you about First Great Western. The main body of text in the section has plenty of references, and it's debatable whether a list of routes operated really needs them. It could be possible to reference some of the points in the other sections to back issues of RAIL magazine, as I did for the Background section, but this could prove difficult for FGW, and reliable web-based sources are almost non-existent. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)