Wikipedia:Peer review/SECR K and SR K1 classes/archive1

SECR K and SR K1 classes
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the prose requires checking before submittal to the FA selection process. Also, any instances where text clarity can be improved to cater for the lay reader would be most welcome.

Thanks, Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(A) I think we are assuming some background knowledge here. The locos were tested on the LNER, fine, then tested on the Southern, fine, then Gresley terminated the tests. Hmmm.
 * Rebuilding

The problems that I have with this are:
 * 1) Who was "Gresley"? (he is not mentioned earlier) - yes, we know (and I've linked him), but read on...
 * 2) What was Gresley's relationship to the Southern Railway and these tests? - bearing in mind he was the LNER CME (there's your assumed knowledge!)
 * 3) How come Gresley got the Southern trials stopped? (Had the LNER trials already finished?)

This will require a bit of restructuring I think, but it needs to be sorted.

(B) A second, minor point. Would it be helpful to clarify as "as surge in the side tanks", or would this imply there were other tanks? (Wasn't sure, so left it as-is.) Later in the section, 'side tanks' is appropriate terminology.

EdJogg (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They were tested on the LNER, and as a guess, I think it was because it had main lines in a better state of repair that the Southern on which to gain an objective assessment of the running characteristics of the class. I'll have to wait a bit to confirm this, but it should be done by Monday/Tuesday evening.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(C) Did the locos retain their names after rebuilding? I presume not, but we don't actually say as much! EdJogg (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The above has been dealt with. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The undefined undefined tags for feet-and-inches to metres are set to a precision of 3 decimal places, whereas the ones for feet alone give one place. A very trivial point in a very comprehensive article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Precision


 * I've standardised all to 3 sig-figs. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This section has a pile of placename links which need replacing by the appropriate station links (which is the usual convention for railway-related articles). Can use in many cases, although some (eg London, Portsmouth) may require some thought (eg Portsmouth railway station is a DAB page). Rest of article will need checking for same. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Operational Details


 * Have sifted through the article and modified those that I felt needed modifying in this way. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "Further reading" section; I have three suggestions for that: I realise that Bradley is already in the references, but that is for first edition. The above 2nd ed is much expanded (note the different page numbers). Nock is a Book Club edition, and was first published by Patrick Stephens Limited. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Further reading


 * Several articles I have been involved with once had a 'Further reading section', but whilst I have no problem with it, a reviewer stated that it implies that not all sources have been accessed, which is true in most cases. However, no-one has access to all sources, so to save argument, I removed it. I may re-instate it on articles already passed for FA. Will think about this. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't see why this "reviewer" should object to a "Further reading" section; it's mentioned at MOS:APPENDIX as the fourth of five standard appendices. Articles might get denied GA or FA because they don't follow MOS - but IMHO, anybody suggesting that it's wrong to follow procedures actually laid down in MOS, must be wrong themselves.
 * Later at WP:FURTHERREADING it's given a fuller definition - the operative phrase here is "recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content". After all, we're not here to write the definitive account - professional authors do that; what we should be doing is stimulating peoples interest so that they can then go and read the definitive account written by Bradley or the others. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't put it better myself, so as you can see, I've added one of the texts suggested. I'm thinking of ordering a second hand copy of Bradley's revised edition of SECR locomotives after Christmas to see if there's anything important that wasn't included in the 1961 version. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * MOS:APPENDIX notes that Further Reading should be a level 2 heading, so I have raised it accordingly. As noted above, this section is for sources that have not been used in the article, potential references, if you like. The above-linked pages note that the section is similar in scope to an 'External links' section. I would say you can easily get away with adding the other two books, if you are certain that the loco is covered sufficiently within. -- EdJogg (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Add to above list: The first article describes what happened to the Maunsell moguls (including the N class) after Dieselisation of the Reading-Redhill route in January 1965. The second article is essentially a selection of photos; a posed photo of A790 in service, plus three (with lengthy captions) of A800 awaiting repair at Ashford after the accident. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have this publication, and will also use it when improving the U class article. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What does "pps." mean - "p." means "page", and "pp." is "pages", so "pps."=? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional: Most info on the Rivers and the rebuilds is in two chapters, which are chronologically out of order. Chapter 8 "Tank Engines and the Sevenoaks Incidents" (pp. 96-108) and chapter 7 "The Moguls: The Maids of All Work" (pp. 84-95), but there is more elsewhere, such as pp. 65,67. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

PPS. is something I picked up from a previous FA attempt, not to mention my referencing as an MA student of History. As usual it represented a compromise between how the editor and the reviewer wants the article formatted. I think I'll change to PP., as this seems to be the common way to do it, looking at recent FAs. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you examine book references formatted using the template (such as my earlier examples), you'll see that these have their bare page numbers in a page or pages parameter, and the visual rendering is as "p." or "pp." respectively. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just checked the referencing. It was something of a mess; here is a of my fixes. Most of the problems concerned the use of the  attribute to the   tag. Put simply, each occurrence of value in  must be unique - and there were several non-unique instances. It must be appreciated that if we have a ref like this:
 * Referencing

then to reference the same page in the same book, you simply do this:

but to reference a different page in the same book, you cannot do this:

Instead, it needs to have a fresh ref like this:

(where the ref is only needed once, the  attribute is not required).

There are still two problems outstanding, and I can't sort those because I don't have the book in question. In the lede we have this:

under Sevenoaks disaster we have this:

So far, so good. But under Rebuilding we have this:

The value of the name attribute, ie "Scott-Morgan", has been used before. It is not unique. If you examine the Notes section, you will see that all three have been consolidated into one entry, reading "3. ^ a b c Scott-Morgan, p. 18". What needs to be done here is that the page number for the sentence "To recoup the expense of constructing the engines, Maunsell was given permission to rebuild them to the new SR U class 2-6-0 tender engine design in 1928." should be determined; if it is 18, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 46 ref; conversely, if that sentence be backed up by page 46, then the "name=Scott-Morgan" must be removed from the page 18 ref. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference p. 46 now separated from the two p. 18 references. I'm surprised I let that one slip, but its good to have someone going over these things. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead section Background Design Construction - K Class Construction - K1 Class Naming the locomotives K and K1 class construction history Operational details Performance of the tank locomotives Sevenoaks disaster See also --DavidCane (talk) 00:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Review
 * Presumably "...were among the first non-Great Western Railway (GWR) types to use and improve upon the basic design principles established by GWR Chief Mechanical Engineer (CME) George Jackson Churchward." is included as part of the K and K1 classes' reasons for notability. It is probably explained later in the article, but, at this early stage, it leaves the question hanging for those readers not in the know: what were Churchward's basic design principles and how did the K and K1 classes improve on them?
 * Ditto, what were the Midland Railway concepts?
 * I have added a link to George Jackson Churchward to in first paragraph.
 * If all of the engines were built between 1917 and 1925, the time frame "between the first and second world wars" is a bit artificial as they were all built in a seven year period out of 21 years. It is also slightly inaccurate because the first was built during WWI not after as "between" implies. It is also at odds with the class construction history section which indicates that 10 were built in Brighton in 1926. I think it would be better to say that the design was completed in 1914, the prototype was built in 1917 and the remaining 20 engines were built in 1925-26.
 * The use of "the" in "as part of the SECR's fleet standardisation" implies that the standardisation has been mentioned previously or that the reader is familiar with it. At this stage, they may not be. Suggest change to "a SECR fleet standardisation".
 * "various" in "various rivers" is redundant. A common term like river does not need to be linked.
 * Again "the 1927 Sevenoaks railway accident" assumes prior knowledge. Suggest "a railway accident at Sevenoaks in 1927".
 * "On the lines of the former London, Chatham and Dover Railway (LCDR) – inherited by the SECR in 1899 – beach pebbles had been used for ballast rather than conventional ballast with irregular shapes that "lock" together to keep the track in place. These economies in construction meant that only locomotives with low axle loadings could operate safely over the track. The SECR was therefore unable to follow a coherent locomotive strategy in reducing the number of locomotive types inherited from the two constituent railways" has a number of problems because it assumes prior knowledge in several places which needs to be addressed:
 * Where are the lines of the former London, Chatham and Dover Railway?
 * How did the SECR inherit the LCDR?
 * Why did the SECR want or need to reduce the number of locomotive types?
 * The LCDR was one constituent railway of the SECR, but what was the other one, that, presumably, had done the sensible thing and used standard ballast?
 * Can it be explained why the SECR just did not reset the tracks in standard ballast rather than design a new engine?
 * "Despite increased passenger and freight traffic between London Charing Cross and the Kentish coast during the first decades of the twentieth century, the Operating Department had to use mismatched classes of underpowered and obsolete 4-4-0 and 0-6-0 locomotives which could operate within the restrictions imposed by the infrastructure."
 * "London Charing Cross" should be "Charing Cross station" or just "Charing Cross".
 * "Kentish coast" should be "Kent coast"
 * How is the second half of the sentence "despite" the first half? I think it should start "Although passenger and freight traffic between Charing Cross and the Kent coast had increased..." and then discuss how the limitations on the engine loadings restricted the SECR from responding efficiently due to the obsolete locomotives.
 * Why did this result in "double heading"? It is partially explained in the design section but should be mentioned here.
 * Why was Wainwright's retirement enforced? There is nothing in his article to explain this.
 * "in a too heavy axle loading" should be "in too heavy an axle loading".
 * "The 2-6-4 wheel arrangement was not in common use in Great Britain at this time, only the Great Central Railway 1B class freight locomotives (later known as the LNER Class L1 and L3 classes) having preceded the K class." Is awkward; suggest "The 2-6-4 wheel arrangement was not in common use in Great Britain at this time, having only been used on the Great Central Railway's 1B class freight locomotives."
 * Why was 2-6-4 uncommon? Did it have technical disadvantages or limitations that made it less suitable?
 * How had track curves constrained the size of locomotives on the SECR? Presumably it was tightness of curve, but was this another problem caused by the LCDR's shoddy construction or was it a problem on other non-LCDR sections?
 * "London Charing Cross" used again and linked for a second time.
 * What was the first step in the standardisation programme?
 * A lot of the influences on the K class design seem to have come from Maunsell's assistants. Is it fair then to say that Maunsell designed the class?
 * Churchward's first name should be given.
 * Again, what were Churchward's design principles?
 * ",but as with the N class," needs a comma after "but".
 * "due to the requirements for armaments manufacture by Ashford works during the First World War" would be better as "due to the use of the Ashford works for wartime armaments manufacture"
 * July 1917 is not towards the end of the war. At that period the war still had 15 months to run.
 * Chief Mechanical Engineer is used in full although CME has previously been used as its abbreviation. It also is linked again.
 * Punctuation in the third paragraph needs improvement.
 * "London Cannon Street" should be "Cannon Street station" or "Cannon Street".
 * 300 long tons equals about 305 metric tonnes not 300; use 300 LT to get the correct conversion plus the short ton conversion.
 * "...to address complaint of rough riding by earlier members of the class" should be "...to address complaints of rough riding experienced with earlier members of the class"
 * I have rephrased the last sentence about the accident.
 * The conversion templates are producing conversions from inches to mm to thousandths of a millimetre. I note above that you say that you have set them to three significant figures; actually you have set them to round to 3 decimal places which is not the same. Use 6 ft, 16 in and 3 in instead to produce conversions to the nearest mm.
 * What were the conversions applied to N class locomotive 822 in 1922?
 * The article says that the main visual difference between K and K1 classes was the use of "a slab-front" on the K1 class. What is a slab front and what did the K class have instead?
 * The article gives the name of three rivers used for the names of the locomotives - Adur, Avon and Frome. To satisfy the question as to what the others were named, I think the link in the See also section to List of SECR K and SR K1 class locomotives needs to be moved up to this section.
 * I think that this section should be above the naming section.
 * As the notes column only repeats information already in the text above, I think that this can be removed.
 * What are "service trains"?
 * I have fixed grammar issues in this section.
 * Who was the chairman of the board who over ruled the directors in their efforts to ban the K class from passenger traffic? Was this before the Sevenoaks accident?
 * What impact on the SR's standing did the accident have? Was compensation paid?
 * It is interesting that the accident report concludes that the engines were well designed and suitable for express services on well maintained track. Perhaps this conclusion should be added to the article, either in this section or the Operational assessment and preservation section.
 * The linked PDF report includes a good engineering elevation on page 42 of the K class which could be added to the article as the Crown copyright on the report has expired.
 * This section is not strictly necessary as the items listed in it are already linked elsewhere in the article.


 * Have undertaken several of the changes listed here, apart from the 'See also' section, as there aren't really any rules for inclusion or removal. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * https://sremg.org.uk/
 * You need more information on the Ian Allan ABC of British Railways work. Is it this work? The entry needs to give enough information that it is possible to locate the work, which right now the entry doesn't do. At the very least, you need publisher/author/etc.
 * Which edition of the Holcroft work was used? World Cat lists three different editions, you need to be more specific in order for it to be verifiable.
 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 16:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response Have attempted to address the reference issues above, and have replaced SEMG with verifiable sources.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I would normally regard the SEMG site as Reliable; certainly as reliable as any book published on the subject. It is published by a group of enthusiasts in the subject matter, comprising historians, modellers and other interested parties. The nature of such railway enthusiasts is to strive for accuracy. The site itself is not editable by 'anyone', and hence any facts must at least be reviewed by the specific person responsible for applying edits. What prevents it from being 'Reliable' in WP terms is (presumably) a lack of visibility of any peer review / editorial oversight of its content, much of which is likely to take place by broadcast email. Incidentally, I am NOT a member of SEMG, just an occasional visitor over many years, usually researching for WP (!) or my modelling. -- EdJogg (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I too think its as reliable as any text (I daresay more so than Wikipedia!), but I believe the problem lies with the fact that its hard to verify the data used in the articles, a situation compounded by the lack of a bibliography and/or footnotes. Generally, I've tried to use this site for photographic evidence to illustrate complex issues, as well as other items in the absence of my own reference material. However, since I have a few more references in hard text, it is now possible to begin to change over to something more verifiable. However, the site is still useful as an external link in most articles.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)