Talk:SR N15X class/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Capitalize "coal" in the infobox. The lead should summarize all sections of the article; it is a little short and it is permitted to repeat contents from the lead in the main section. The national context (i.e. the use of United Kingdom) should be made within the first sentence or two to provide context. The Brighton Main Line should be linked to, not London and Brighton individually. lbf/in² must be converted to metric (I think the conversion is Newton, but I honestly don't know what lbf/in² is). Smoke-box should use hyphen (-), not en-dash (–). Nationalisation should link to the article on the rail nationalsation in the UK (or at least to British Rail).
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There is the odd place where it is a little unclear if the content is referenced. To pass GA all claims must have inline citations. Remember, it is better to repeat a cite than to leave one out.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article is somewhat short, but then again it covers all aspects and remains focused. This is not something I will dwell with, but perhaps a little lengthening of the operations might be encouraged. I will leave this outside the GA consideration.
 * 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):
 * I do not believe that the free use rationale of image is applicable. Without an image I fear it cannot pass the GA. If you feel you are being treated unfairly by me, find a "copyright expert" who can bough for that it is fair use and I will reconsider. Alternatively you may need to find an different image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold. Fix the small stuff in point 1 and 2 and the prose will pass. As mentioned, my main concern is the image; find a solution to resolve this and the article will pass GA. If you have any feedback on this review feel free to make additional comments. Nice work :) Arsenikk (talk)  09:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I am placing the article on hold. Fix the small stuff in point 1 and 2 and the prose will pass. As mentioned, my main concern is the image; find a solution to resolve this and the article will pass GA. If you have any feedback on this review feel free to make additional comments. Nice work :) Arsenikk (talk)  09:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has got in before me and has dealt with the issues regarding prose. However, the image is over 70 years old and is uncredited from a railway journal. The same rationale has worked on an image in another article (LNER Gresley Classes A1 and A3). It is nigh-on impossible to find another image of the N15X that has the remotest possibility of being free, as there there are no official photographs taken to the best of my knowledge, and none of my references have any free copyright images. Otherwise, what is the point of a "Fair Use" rationale if it cannot be used in cases such as this? However, I have asked for the opinion of someone who has a bit more experience in such matters.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I have found an adequate licence that is applicable under EU law.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I though it might be old enough for public domain, but I am not even going to pretend I know anything about copyright law ;) Arsenikk (talk)  10:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that if the licence was wrong, the image would have been deleted by some observant member of the community by now (it has been on here a week, and usually someone takes issue well before now if an image should be deleted). Otherwise, there is nothing I can do until someone concurs with the image. Personally, and I have had some experience in sorting image issues out (eg. the images used in the SR Leader Class article which were up for deletion), I can't see any issues in allowing the article to go to GA. If there is a problem, I'm sure someone else will have a look... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would have thought it is old enough to be 'public domain' by now, but I know no more than the other contributors thus far! Dare I suggest you contact the publishers? If they are happy that the image is free from copyright restrictions then you should be fine. (There is a process at Commons for storing such permissions officially, "OTRS". The current lead image in steam turbine, which is copyright of Siemens, is so identified and may provide links to further information.) EdJogg (talk) 13:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What is holding up the pass is that there are a few places that significant figures are not references. Put simply: anything controversial or that contains a number must be references. Several claims are maid, such as "All had been withdrawn by 1957, with none preserved." (in the lead) and the numberings given to the locomotives. It could be that this is referenced somewhere else—in that case the inline citation should be added to other occurrences too. Arsenikk (talk)  13:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

See below. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, some clarification appears to be required here. The GA criteria do not require that every statement containing a number is cited every time it appears. That applies particularly to the lead, in which the only citations required are those in support of statements not cited elsewhere in the article and direct quotations. Your first example "All had been withdrawn by 1957, with none preserved" is properly sourced later in the article and therefore does not need to be cited again in the lead. See LEAD. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am passing the article as Good. Congratulations! Arsenikk (talk)  16:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the image copyright
It's confusing and inconsistent to see both a claim of public domain and a non-free use rationale. The public domain claim is the one that should be relied on and justified IMO. I've copied the image to Wikimedia Commons with an amended claim for it being in the public domain. All that needs to be done in addition is to add to the description what steps have been taken to identify the author (such as asking the magazine, if it's still being produced). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As a secondary issue, I do not agree with the reviewer's assessment that without an image this article would not meet the GA criteria. Images are not required by GA. The relevant criteria is "Illustrated, if possible, by images" (my emphasis). --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Two comments: My interpretation of that line means that as long as an image could exist of the item in question, it would have to be illustrated, even if no free image was found by the author. I fear that an unillustrated article of this nature falls short of my experience of a good article. Secondly, there are thousands of images on Wikipedia with no or invalid fair use tags that stay around for years. Just because no-one has questioned the fair use rationale over a period of time, does not mean that it is valid fair use. These two issues of course out of the way now since the image seems to be in the public domain. Arsenikk (talk)  13:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So this would probably mean that thousands of otherwise excellent articles are at risk of not reaching their potential for want of a free image. As you say, it is how you interpret the criteria, but it is frequently the case that one man's scrap metal is another man's gold. If Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, then articles should be promoted with or without images if their written quality and the research that went into them merits it. This is my interpretation of the rules regarding an article's promotion. Anyway, this is supposed to be a review of the SR N15X article, not a discussion of Wikipedia's GA promotion criteria, and as such, I think the concerns raised have been dealt with.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)