Template:Did you know nominations/British Rail Class 458

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk| 
 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

{{DYK conditions}}

British Rail Class 458
Improved to Good Article status by Pkbwcgs (talk). Self-nominated at 17:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC).
 * ... that six Class 458s (pictured) were converted from former Gatwick Express Class 460s?
 * ALT1:... that six Class 458s (pictured) were converted from former Gatwick Express Class 460s which were withdrawn in September 2012?
 * ALT2:... that six five-car Class 458s (pictured) were converted from former Gatwick Express Class 460s which were withdrawn in September 2012?
 * ALT3:... that six five-car Class 458s (pictured) were converted from former Gatwick Express trains which were withdrawn in September 2012?
 * ALT4:... that six Class 458s (pictured) each lost three carriages in the process of being converted from former Gatwick Express trains?
 * ALT5:... that six Class 458s (pictured) were converted from a mixture of cars from former Gatwick Express trains?


 * Symbol voting keep.svg QPQ not needed. Promoted to GA on March 8. Hook is interesting. Article is NPOV with no obvious copyvio. Image is currently CC licensed. (I took the liberty of adding (pictured) to ALT-1.) The hook is inline cited using the term "reconfigured" instead of "converted" which I think is fine. The source used to cite that is offline (Modern Railways), however, meets what I would consider a reasonable definition of RS. All looks good. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Hi, I came by to promote this. I was wondering if it's obvious that the hook is referring to British Rail Class cars (it's not obvious to me). I also wonder if anyone cares. This is a GA; could you suggest a better hook? Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about ALT3 which replaces "Class 460" with "trains" with a link to the article Class 460. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling you're so familiar with the subject that you can't see it like an outsider. I don't live in England. I have never taken a train. I'm afraid that ALT3 isn't even remotely interesting to me. What would make it interesting is adding another fact that I could relate to, like the cars were too squishy, or cars were eliminated in the process of renovation, or...? Yoninah (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How about ALT4? Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Better, thanks! Please add an inline cite after that sentence. could you review ALT4 please? Yoninah (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This source. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * thank you. I meant you should add a cite to the article after this sentence: Six of the eight Class 460 trains lost three carriages in the process, leaving them as 5-car trains that were also reconfigured as class 458/5 trains. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is the best source I can find to give the general idea that the eight-car Class 460s were converted to six five-car Class 458. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. So are you going to add the citation to the article?
 * Meanwhile, I see someone else has deleted the part about losing 3 carriages. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit as the previous version was more detailed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. Please add the inline cite to the sentence about losing three carriages. Yoninah (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't find a citation that says that the Class 460s have lost three carriages. The best I could give was the website I have stated above. I may need help from another user who has expertise in British railways. Maybe User:Redrose64 could help. I have done a detailed search and the citation from railnews was the best I could find. Perhaps this citation could be better but it doesn't make a specific mention of the Class 460s losing carriages. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. So from a DYK point of view, we need another hook. From a GA point of view, that sentence does need to be sourced, or deleted. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, it goes something like this. Class 458 was originally 30 x 4-car units, total 120 cars; class 460 was originally 8 x 8-car units, total 64 cars; for a grand total of 184 cars. Of the 8-car units, six have been reduced to 5-car units and redesignated class 458, releasing (6 x (8-5)) = 18 cars; the other two 8-car units were disbanded, releasing 16 cars of which four have been stripped for spares and scrapped. This means that the cars released from class 460 units totalled (18 + 16 - 4) = 30 cars, exactly the number required to strengthen all of the 4-car Class 458 units to 5-car. The final tally is 36 x 5-car units, total 180 cars. So in terms of factual accuracy, ALT4 should have the word "each" inserted before the word "lost". But I don't have a source explicitly stating that. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this, the more shaky ALT4 becomes. Having now analysed the individual car numbers allocated to the units before and after conversion (using various editions of the Platform 5 "British Railways Locomotives & Coaching Stock"), here is the breakdown:
 * Former units 460001 and 460002 were entirely split up, each car ending up in a different unit, with six cars from each (12 in all) going to former 4-car units, three cars being redistributed among the other former Class 460 units, and one car scrapped
 * Former units 460003 to 460008 were partially split up, with three cars from each unit (18 in all) going to former 4-car units, but the remaining five cars of each were not kept together:
 * 458531 includes two cars from 460008 and one each from 460002, 460003 and 460006
 * 458532 includes three cars from 460007 and one each from 460004 and 460005
 * 458533 includes three cars from 460003 and one each from 460006 and 460007
 * 458534 includes four cars from 460004 and one from 460008
 * 458535 includes four cars from 460005 and one from 460001
 * 458536 includes three cars from 460006 and one each from 460002 and 460008
 * The four scrapped cars were one each from 460001, 460003, 460007 and 460008.
 * So I find that there isn't a single instance of a class 458 unit containing five cars from the same class 460 unit, which is what we would expect if three cars had been removed from six of the 8-car units. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This has been stuck for over a month. Any updates? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a new hook above. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I find it hard to find ALT5 in the article. All I see is a chart with the (unsourced) number 6 as to the number of trains. I also think that all the life has gone out of the hook. This is a GA; could you suggest something else that is interesting and has an inline cite? Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Reading the hooks again, I have to say that none of them are really interesting to a broad audience: at best maybe they only appeal to train fans. I agree with what Yoninah mentioned above: can something better be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Gatwick Express-linked hooks are quite specialised and dry, too much so really, but I think there is a wealth of potentially interesting hooks in the article - I've suggested some below. Spokoyni (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ALT6:... that the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) were awarded a Golden Spanner?
 * ALT7:... that the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) initially suffered failures on average every 4,300 miles (6,900 km)?
 * ALT8:... that the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) initially suffered failures on average every 4,300 miles (6,900 km), but by 2012 managed 106,049 miles (170,669 km) between failures?
 * ALT9:... that the Class 458s (pictured) were the first new fleet of trains to be delivered following the privatisation of British Rail?
 * ALT10:... that six years after first entering service, the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) were so unreliable that their operator considered replacing them all?
 * ALT11:... that in 2004 the British Rail Class 458s (pictured) were so unreliable that their operator considered replacing them all, but by 2012 they were the most reliable fleet in Britain?
 * Symbol question.svg Of the new hooks, I think ALT10 and ALT11 are the best, with a slight preference for ALT11 as it shows both the reliability and unreliability. I don't have access to the sources used for them so I am assuming good faith. This is almost ready to go: my only concern is that there's no footnote in the "Fleet details" section. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I like ALT11 and I think that this should be used as the source for the hook. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you please cite the "Fleet details" sections so that this can be approved? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have cited the "Fleet details" section. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost good to go: however only one of the cells has a footnote, when both probably need it (I can't seem to verify one cell in the source given, the one about TSOL). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ping. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't been editing regularly so I couldn't reply. I can't find sources for the extra Class 460 TSOL vehicle. I have looked everywhere. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's the case it's probably better to simply comment it out. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It's been several weeks since your last reply here; please respond as soon as possible, otherwise the nomination may be marked for closure as abandoned. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I commented it out. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks. Should be good to go now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

|}}