Talk:NBR 224 and 420 Classes/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bob talk 20:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

As I said when this was on DYK, this is a really nice article about a fairly obscure class of early steam locomotive; the width of research and referencing is very impressive. Now that the lead has been expanded, I can see no reason to prevent this from passing as a Good Article straight away. For further improvement, there are one or two aspects I would quite like to be clarified:


 * "During his tenure of seven years, he provided the NBR with 185 new locomotives; but only eight of these were for express passenger trains, the first two of which were 2-4-0s built in 1869 (the 141 Class),[8] which were considered to be very good engines." - I think this sentence could be a little clearer, as I think "were for express passenger trains" could maybe do with a qualifier. Something like "eight of these engines were suitable for hauling express passenger trains". It might be better to mention classes rather than individual engines, perhaps?


 * "Despite the fall, the locomotive was relatively undamaged, being protected by the bridge girders which formed a cage around the train as they fell together." - this is quite interesting. I'd be quite interested to know how far it fell (presumably it was the height of the bridge plus the depth of the Tay). There's no need to add this, it just seems quite interesting that given it was likely to have been damaged, they were so keen to recover the locomotive.

On the whole, this is very impressive - well done! Bob talk 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)