Talk:SECR K and SR K1 classes/GA1

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

Comments: I am placing the article on hold. Dough4872 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Citations should not be in the lead unless that information is unique. If that is the case, it should be described later in the article as the lead is to be a summary of what is to come.
 * 2) "Eastern section": section should be in uppercase.
 * 3) Comma not needed in sentence "One K class rebuild is preserved on the Watercress Line in Hampshire, and is currently under overhaul."
 * 4) "cross-Channel ferries": I would suggest changing to "ferries across the English Channel".
 * 5) Citations needed for "New designs had to take the aforementioned infrastructure restrictions into account whilst improving on previous performance. The response to the criteria was to become Maunsell's K class 2-6-4 tank engine." and "The trailing bogie permitted the use of a large coal bunker that was capable of sustaining the locomotive over the run between London and Dover, and side water tanks of 2,000 imp gal (9,100 l; 2,400 US gal) capacity were used, negating the need for a tender."
 * 6) In sentence "The protoype operated without a name until 1925, when the Southern Railway’s publicity department decided name all express passenger locomotives.", add "to" after "decided".
 * 7) "little seriously wrong" sounds awkward, can another phrasing be used?
 * 8) The sentence "The management of the Southern Railway decided not to take any further risks, and recommended the class be withdrawn from service before the results of the trials were published, and rebuilt to Maunsell’s new SR U class 2-6-0 tender engine design in 1928." sounds fragmented and needs to be rephrased.
 * 9) Citation needed for "The solitary K1 class locomotive became the three-cylinder SR U1 class prototype following similar conversion."
 * 10) "All entered British Railways service in 1948 and from 1955": Clearly indicate what "all" is referring to.
 * 11) "Woodham Brothers scrapyard": Two wikilinked terms should not be together.
 * 12) The sentences "It was restored to ex-British Railways condition as No. 31806.[19] It is currently under overhaul.[19]" should be combined.
 * 13) In sentence "On grouping in 1923 the SR replaced the liveries of the constituent companies with a standard sage green livery (the colour being that previously used by Urie on the LSWR) with black and white lining, primrose yellow numbering and "Southern" on the tender.", add comma after "1923".
 * 14) Add comma after "1925" in sentence "From 1925 the K and K1 classes were repainted in a darker olive green livery, introduced by Maunsell, with plain white lining and primrose yellow markings."
 * 15) In sentence "From 1949 to 1950 the U and U1 class locomotives were repainted in the British Railways mixed-traffic lined black livery with red, cream and grey lining and the British Railways crest on the tender.", comma needed after "1950".

Comments: Just a couple of issues with the above review:


 * As an editor who has been involved with several articles, I have had conflicting advice regarding the referencing within the lead section, and several FAs have at least one reference in this location. I agree that it is pointless if the information is featured later on in the article, but some reviewers seem to place emphasis on these citations.


 * The Eastern section term is how the Southern Railway referred to various parts of its railway network, calling them Central, Western and Eastern sections. The lower case 'section' is found in most literature on the subject, and several articles on other Southern locomotives (admittedly I have had involvement in these, but some have passed FA with this configuration following stringent copy-editing).


 * Whilst I agree that there needs to be a citation for "The trailing bogie permitted the use of a large coal bunker that was capable of sustaining the locomotive over the run between London and Dover, and side water tanks of 2,000 imp gal (9,100 l; 2,400 US gal) capacity were used, negating the need for a tender", I'm not so sure about the first one, as it is possible to over-cite in an article, and the statement is verifiable through the previous sentence. However, a change in phrasing seems to be required to improve the clarity of this sentence.

Other than these points, I will make the other changes soon. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still would prefer for citations to be added to the uncited statements, as a reader cannot assume that it came from a certain source. Otherwise, the article looks good. Dough4872 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Have referenced the statement in the background despite my personal misgivings. However: "The solitary K1 class locomotive became the three-cylinder SR U1 class prototype following similar conversion"- as the U1 class is wikilinked, I really don't think there needs to be a reference here, as the conversion is discussed in a lot more detail in that particular article. However, I do have a reference if it really is needed. Would it also be possible to request a fairly thorough review of the prose? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In my GA review, I reviewed the prose and pointed out the major issues. At this point, the only caveat I have with the article is for the reference to be added to the statement "The solitary K1 class locomotive became the three-cylinder SR U1 class prototype following similar conversion." Dough4872 (talk) 01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since my final issue has been resolved, I will pass the article. Dough4872 (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)