Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SECR N class/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009.

SECR N class

 * Nominator(s): Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has just gone through peer review, and all issues have been addressed. The article is on course for FA, and any further suggestions for improvement will be gratefully received. Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments. Just a few initial comments:
 * In the lead, "class" is treated as both singular and plural: "The SECR N class were ..." and "the class represents an important stage ...". I would have thought it should be consistently singular?


 * There's sometimes an awful lot of "locomotives" very close together in some places: The new locomotive was designed prior to the K class passenger tank locomotive in 1914 to address the SECR's requirement for a sturdy mixed-traffic locomotive ...". Would "engine" or "unit" be acceptable variations in such cases, just to add a bit interest?


 * What does "finally" mean in this extract from First SECR batch: "... a sharply tapered boiler and finally right-hand drive ..."? Is that the final one in the list of ideas, or were the locomotives initially designed to left-hand drive, with later models being right-hand drive?


 * This, from Operational details and preservation is unclear: "... the class migrated from the Southern Railway's Eastern section to work on the Central and Western sections, where a robust and reliable design such as the N class was to see use throughout the Southern Railway era". Why "was to see use" instead of the straightforward "saw"? The phrase "such as" as well makes me wonder if it was the N class that saw service throughout the Southern Railway era or another class or classes like it.


 * Was the class's nickname "Woolworths" or "Woolworth"? The article seems to be inconsistent.


 * --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor's comment.

Ok, I've tried to address these concerns, and I think that both have been resolved. However, it may benefit from another look at the plural and singular issue. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also have an issue over whether I should use 'is' or 'was' in the leader, as one class member still exists. As a result, I'm getting confused, so could someone suggest a compromise? Whilst I've changed it to 'is', I'm starting to feel that 'was' would be the better tense. Read the leader to see what I mean... --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The above issue I have raised is now resolved. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor's comment. I have addressed Malleus's observation above. As usual, these issues slip through the net when writing the article, and it is only when scrutinised from 'outside' that they are found and dealt with. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I peer reviewed this and believe that due to the changes made there and subsequently, this article meets the FAC criteria. I do think that the first sentence of the lead (now reading The SECR N class is a class of 2-6-0 (mogul) steam locomotive designed by Richard Maunsell for mixed-traffic duties ...) would read better in the past tense (i.e. The SECR N class was a class of 2-6-0 (mogul) steam locomotive ...). The rest of the lead refers to the class in the past tense and reserves the present for the surviving member. I also think of a "class" as one of those odd singular nouns referring to a group (like army). The class has ceased to be, even if one member of it survives. My only other comment is that I wish there were more images available, but understand it can be difficult to obtain free images of locomotives (so this is NOT an actionable item, just a wish). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I'm inclined to agree that 'was' sounds right here. -- EdJogg (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think I'd be inclined to go with "was" too. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Editor Comment -- That's settled then, I've changed it to 'was'. I may be able to get another image when I have time, but it's a works photograph of one of the experimental types, so not necessarily representative. It'll add a bit of variety, though. Will add it tomorrow. Cheers for the hard work already done to improve the article so far, especially to Iain Bell for coming up with the history of the N class boilers. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed title to Woolworths batch. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: problems in the prose. Grammar, flow, organisation and cohesion are all issues and need to be fixed throughout. An independent copy-edit is required. Here are examples from the top. A recurring issue is fuzziness in the grammatical subjects of clauses—most unusual.
 * "three-cylinder", since there are lots of numerals in the vicinity?
 * Is "Woolworths" intended to be humorous? I don't get it.
 * "They were able to operate over most of the Southern Railway network after grouping in 1923,"—the last three words are pipe-linked to a 1921 act of parliament. It's a bit opaque, and we shouldn't have to hit the link to learn what it all means. "blah blah of 1923, in which ....".
 * the new class attempted to ease maintenance? Suggest different grammar.
 * "Outside of"—which word is redundant?
 * "Designed in 1914 by Maunsell to address the SECR's operational problems, caused by obsolescent mixed-traffic designs running on poorly laid track-work, production of the N class was delayed by the outbreak of the First World War." Remove comma after "problems"? Is track-work or are tracks poorly laid? So the production was designed? (I'm trying to locate the main subject of the sentence.)
 * "outside Walschaerts valve gear"—we couldn't say "external", could we? (But keep if "outside" is normal in your field.)
 * equipped with tenders? Tony   (talk)  12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor's Comments - Tony, whilst you have in-depth knowledge of the use of language and the written word, I think there is some room for lee-way here, as there are editors who are trying to cut through the prose issues. I therefore invite you to copy-edit the article on our behalf, to show us how it should be done, so to speak. Anyway, here are a few comments in response to the issues you highlighted


 * It's clearly not Tony's job to copyedit the article, but to provide a helpful critique. In that light an example or two of "fuzziness in the prose" would be helpful, and I'd agree with him that it still needs some tightening up. I think we know how it should be done, and how to fix problems when they're pointed out. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The "3-cylinder/three-cylinder" issue has been thrown about like a hot potato several times, and at one stage in an earlier FA I used the word format only for it to be changed back again.


 * "Woolworths" is most certainly not a joke, and there are references stating this as a nickname for the class.
 * I don't see why every railway-related article should have to recite the history of the grouping every time the word appears, which is why linking it to the appropriate section in the appropriate article is better.
 * I agree with you on the fourth point, but as usual, it is because you have the benefit of "strategic distance".
 * "Outside of"- where is it? I can't find this when searching through the text.
 * I already removed the "of" from "outside of". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With greatest respect, I don't see what you are getting at on the fifth point, either...
 * You are correct, "Outside" is the proper terminology for an "External" cylinder.

Thank you for your input, though.

--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor's Comments - Having taken Tony's critique of the article into consideration, and having a good read of the prose, I am also inclined to agree that the article needs a lot of tightening up. With this in mind, I have removed a fair amount of 'fuzz' and fluff, and have hopefully cut the article back to its essentials, which can be worked upon by more objective editors. In case any offense was caused by my above comments, I apologise, but the way the oppose was made seemed a bit undiplomatic upon first read.

Now this has been said, I will take a back-seat whilst the article takes its course, only improving blatant prose issues, and any changes to factual content. Regards, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support after a fair bit of thought. I agree that it doesn't always meet the whole "brilliant refreshing prose" thing, but there's so much dry technical information that needs to be included, by definition occasional parts need to go into technical detail in a way that's incompatible with 1a; although I'm a great fan of "background fluff" when it's possibly to add it, that's not the case if it comes at the cost of sacrificing accuracy. There are a few things I think ought to be explained more (at least in footnotes), such as the colour scheme (no general reader should be expected to know what "Maunsell grey" or "Maunsell-style green livery with Bulleid gilt lettering" mean), but these are minor points. On an article like this, I think the pertinent points are "why was it built?", "what did it do?", "how did it differ from others?" and "what happened to it?", and this meets all of those; criteria 1a is an important principle, but shouldn't encourage fluff over accuracy. Besides, the highly technical prose is generally the professional standard in the field of engineering history. – iride  scent  22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor's Comments - Taking into account the issues highlighted on the talk page, I have done a complete redraft of the Background which hopefully adds to, rather than detracts from the article. It is fully referenced, and I hope it satisfies why the locomotive was designed in the first place, as well as the wider situation on the SECR. All that needs to be done is to improve the prose if need be, and in that respect, I commend it to whoever wants to take up the baton. The facts are there, it just needs polishing up. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've done a quick-fix regarding the livery issue, click on Southern Railway at the top of the 'Livery and numbering' section. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * These look good to me. I made two minor copyedits, but have reread the whole article just now and did not find any other errors. My only suggestion is to consider whether it would help to incorporate inline color samples. So something like "This Maunsell grey livery was introduced by the SECR as a wartime economy measure." This is only an idea - not sure if it would work or not. Ruhrfisch  &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor's Comments - We could select the relevant liveries from the bunch in the Southern Railway article and put them in a row at the end of the section? It would also give a bit of chronology, as D L Bradley discusses the general changes in Southern Railway livery in his books on former LSWR locomotives. Another idea would be to just wikilink each livery back to the Southern Railway page, which would negate the need to have that italicised sentence at the start of the section giving instructions. What's the consensus? --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose EDIT: Neutral for now pending further prose review. Switched to support. Steve T • C Mainly the prose. It's not far away, and likely passable during the expected timescale of this FAC, so don't worry too much yet (see the link for why I've registered an oppose, rather than mere "comments"). It's already been established above that some fine-tuning is required, and several people seem to be in the process of making improvements, so to save space I'll try to limit my comments for now to content only. As always, there's no requirement to change anything in the article to get my !vote; if there's a good editorial reason for the way something is, I'll be happy to strike the concern: —probably the weakest section overall in terms of the writing, but that's not surprising (or a big problem) given the wholesale changes it's had; if we can get this right, it'll set the article up nicely. —That's all for now; when more prose improvements have been made (or if you request some specific examples of passages that don't quite work), I'll take another look. Nice work so far, Steve  T • C 13:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Background
 * "... a legacy of competent but unspectacular locomotives that did little to improve the SECR’s motive power situation." Something is lacking here, and I think it's context. At this point in the article there is no indication that there is anything wrong with SECR's "motive power situation"; that comes later, in the text about the increased loadings, rubbish tracks and weak bridges. Everything in that sentence after "locomotives" can probably be discarded; perhaps rework the text that follows to provide the necessary detail that as time went on these locomotives became increasingly inadequate to cope with the new developments.
 * The first paragraph is repetitive: "Three factors dictated the type of locomotive that could operate on the SECR: increased train loadings, poor track quality and weak bridges ... ever-increasing demands on the SECR's infrastructure, with trains increasing in both length and weight ... whilst many of the bridges were lightly built." Could these be woven together more tightly to eliminate the redundancies?
 * "On the former London, Chatham and Dover Railway lines beach pebbles had been used for ballast." As a layperson, I haven't been given enough information to tell me why using beach pebbles for ballast creates a problem. Is it simply that they represent an increase in weight?
 * "All of these factors conspired to make the SECR a difficult railway to operate." This serves only to pad the section out without giving the reader anything of worth, as that has already been conveyed pretty clearly.
 * Suggestion only: to the layperson, talk of 2-6-0 / 0-6-0 wheel arrangements might not be completely clear; would it be of any use to include a schematic from the Commons, a modified version of this image showing just those two configurations, or at least a prominent piped link to Whyte notation?
 * Design details and construction history
 * Suggestion: "Design and construction" as a title tells us exactly the same thing as "Design details and construction history"
 * Comment: The amended article titles are better, but structure it oddly. The construction section contains a lot of design details, as the different batches differed in many ways. I still think the more appropriate structure would be to have the current "Design" section incorporated into "Construction" as an introductory paragraph, with the overall heading called "Design and construction" or similar. But I'm not going to quibble, or let such a minor point alone lead to opposition.
 * Second "Woolwich" batch and exports to Ireland
 * "The cost of the maintenance burden imposed by the incompatible classes operated by the SECR at the end of the First World War meant that standardisation became a priority for the company." We've already been told exactly this in the design section's introductory paragraph.
 * Suggestion only: give your eyes a treat and create stubs for the redlinked GSR K1 class and GSR K1a class? Even if you only create redirects to the appropriate section of a parent article, it'll be better than giving those links undue prominence by having the readers' eyes drawn to the red.
 * Operational details and preservation
 * Slight inconsistency. The lead states that "One N class locomotive is preserved on the Watercress Line in Hampshire." This section states that "Only a single member of the class has been preserved ... and is currently stored pending overhaul"; if the locomotive is currently in storage, it's not in active service on the line, which the lead sort of implies.
 * Further reading
 * The inclusion of such a section sometimes indicates that not all resources have been tapped for information, and that the article may not satisfy 1b. Does the book listed here include any major details that would be relevant to the article? If so, they should be included; if not, it may be appropriate to eliminate the section altogether.
 * General
 * Review for manual of style consistency, especially on the use of endashes, hyphens etc. Random examples: "From 1949–1950" ("from" and "to" are complementary; if you spell one out, you should the other too); "Reynolds, pp. 155-156" (hyphen should be endash); "Tonbridge-Hastings" (disjunction—conveys the sense of to or through, so that hyphen should also be an endash).


 * Co-Editor's comments -- in response to Steve...
 * With regard to the preserved loco status, that may be my fault for suggesting at peer review that it be removed from the lede. My thinking was that we don't want to edit the lede every time its operational status changes. It is highly unlikely that it will ever be scrapped, and therefore it can probably be considered "preserved" whether working or not. This has implications in other articles, so would be interesting to get a view on this matter here. EdJogg (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that Bulleid Pacific (talk) has now addressed all the issues specifically raised by Steve. Both BP and myself have had a go at the "Background" section -- mine slightly more radical. I hope we have tackled most of the remaining repetition. The most noticeable still present concerns increases in train loading, and each instance is covering a slightly different point; hopefully, this is no longer an issue. The only sentence I am still unhappy with is that concerning the "small beach pebbles". I have linked to track ballast, where there is a description of the properties of good ballast, but the explanation of the problem in the article seems to be lacking something. I have been unable to adjust it without extending the sentence excessively. (The significant point is that conventional ballast is made from small pieces of crushed rock, the irregular faces locking together and preventing lateral track movement: round pebbles from the beach can't do this (presumably it is the sheer bulk weight of pebbles that limits movement rather than their shape).)
 * EdJogg (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * UPDATE -- An explanation has now been provided regarding the problems with the ballast, and a little extra detail correcting the history of the preserved locomotive. I think that's everything for now. EdJogg (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Super. Sorry for the delay, but it'll be this evening before I can get around to reviewing the changes to strike those issues that have been resolved (a quick glance looks good so far). Steve  T • C 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck oppose; listed content objections have been dealt with speedily and with good grace. Will take another look at the prose in a day or so. Nice work. Steve  T • C 23:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten about this, but as the article seems to be in the middle of a copyedit, I'm holding off a re-review until that's done. Let me know, either here or on my talk page, when you're ready for me to take another look. All the best, Steve  T • C 11:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor's Comments - After a lot of work by EdJogg, the prose has been dealt with to form a much more coherent article. Any further issues will be dealt with, but as for factual content, the article is complete. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Done -- actually, that one was introduced since we started the FAC process! (I checked and cleared the DAB issues as the first thing done after FAC started.) --- EdJogg (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The prose has had a lot of attention from several editors; while I'm sure someone would be able to find something to nitpick (there was one during my recent light c/e that I couldn't figure how to resolve; I'll leave that to the primary editors), I think it's at a good enough level to become featured. From what I can tell through a brief independent check, it seems comprehensive, and it presents an overview of the topic that is understandable to the general reader as well as experts. Nice work, Steve  T • C 12:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I have reworked the sentence referred to above and requested Steve to review and confirm my modifications... -- EdJogg (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC) -- ...which he has now done. EdJogg (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Image concern for the only image as follows:
 * File:BR Class N 31871 Plymouth 1948.jpg: please go through the OTRS process for this image; i.e. forward the emails to the OTRS team and attach the ticket to the image.
 * Awaiting feedback. Jappalang (talk) 09:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have sent an OTRS request, as the file includes a link to a permission email. Unfortunately the source appears to be down, so it could be very difficult to follow this up beyond the available information. EdJogg (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to worry, it has been archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20070207103731/www.planefacts.co.uk/railway/main/index.htm. Jappalang (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well-found! I couldn't track it down. Thankfully, all the pictures have been archived too. EdJogg (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on a moment. Is this photo taken by Richard H Huelin himself?  It does not seem so on the index page: "These all appear to have been taken in either the late 1940's or early 1950's.  Unfortunately the detail I have about them is sparse."  If he is not the author, I am afraid even an OTRS ticket would not help.  Where did he obtain the photograph from?  Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an image on Flickr here of one of these locomotives which is clearly by the original photographer. Not sure if he would be amenable to having it here if contacted. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How about File:Ropley Station on the Mid-Hants Railway.jpg? Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's severely cropped, and still not ideal (you can see little below footplate level, and its barely possible even to see the wheel arrangement!) but it is clearer than the other picture, it's free for our use (thank you for finding it!) and it gets us out of a hole. I'll swap it over now... -- EdJogg (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments.
 * Intro. There's a mention of SEC-Ks. Because a link is made between the two locomotives, it needs to be made clear here that these were also of Maunsell's design, but served a somewhat different purpose.
 * The Background begins with a long paragraph that indicates that things happened over time (eg. the number of passengers increased etc) but gives no time frame at all. At least one date is an absolute necessity, and several would be an asset.
 * I was interested in reading about the problems with the balast.
 * Amandajm (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor's response
 * I have adjusted the offending section in the lede. The change also reinforces the link between 'It' (2nd sentence) and the N class (1st sentence), which is useful.
 * "Background" changes will need input from User:Bulleid Pacific, as he has the ref books!! As for the timing, I had always read this as a/the period that the SECR were running, up to the introduction of the N Class.
 * Glad you liked the bit about the ballast!
 * EdJogg (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead Editor's comment Just back from my holiday. Have added a few dates to put the Background section's first paragraph into context. I've also amended a few other issues raised on the article's talk page to clarify and simplify, as there is little to be done without going into original research if other texts don't refer to them. I'm surprised no-one has found an original works photograph of an N class, as this would be out of copyright by now. I have a couple of attributed images that have expired copyrights (taken between 1923 and 1940); I'll have to dig them out. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.