# Talk:LSWR M7 class

Just had a look at the article and thought it was very good. One problem is the lead is the very short and doesn't really summarise the article (see WP:LEAD). However the next section 'Overview' does this very well, so I would suggest that the overview section be incorporated into the lead.
This could be done on the other two GA candidates (SR Class Q1 and  LSWR M7 Class). Thanks Suicidalhamster 11:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the nomination on the candidates' page was not removed, however the criteria set out above has been rectified, and so the above flyer has been back-dated to the original nomination date.  The overview adds a little extra information concerning the backgroung situation that broght abot the class.  Maybe I shall change this to 'Class Backgrond.'
Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The changes you've made look good, a few other points:
The lead could be a bit longer with more things summarised. This could be things like 5 major design variant and fitted with push-pull workings etc. Do you think these are sufficiently important for the lead?
This sentence from the second paragraph in construction history is hard to follow: Between 1897 and 1899, the locomotives were constructed with a short overhang at the front, sandboxes combined with the front splashers, injectors, lever reverser and conical, as opposed to flat, smokebox doors on numbers 252-256.
The second paragraph in 'Livery and Numbering under the LSWR and Southern' talks about the 'E' prefix because they were built there - does this refer to Nine Elms? If so could this be stated.
Finally! The sections at the end could be renamed to be less confusing in my opinion - to this end I have made the changes to the article. What do you think, does it make things clearer?
Hope these points help to improve the article. Even without them the article passes the 6 Good Article criteria in my opinion so am going to pass it as a GA. Good Work - Suicidalhamster 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The M7 was not a successor to the O2. The O2 was never succeeded by anything being a very adequate light-weight design that continued to work into the 1960s. The real LSWR ancestor of the M7 was the Adams T1, an 0-4-4 with 5ft 7in driving wheels a tank engine version of the Adams Jubilee. They had 18 x 26in cylinders and 160psi pressure as against 18 1/2 x 26 and 175psi for the M7. I have modified parts of the article to suit, trying to stick as close as possible to the original text, but it may need retouching.--John of Paris 21:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Just seen in Casserley's book (p. 106) that contrary to what I have always thought, the 1900 design did originally have sandboxes in the smokebox and they were later relocated below the running plate. this needs folowing up, although I can't imagine how they would have been filled.--John of Paris 12:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The article currently states:
"When transferred to Southern Railway ownership after 1923 the locomotives were outshopped in Richard Maunsell's darker version of the LSWR livery, with numbering having an 'E' prefix to denote Eastleigh rather than Nine Elms, due to the predominant number of the class constructed there."
I don't think this is correct - my understanding is that former LSWR locomotives were given the 'E' prefix irrespective of whether they were built by Eastleigh, Nine Elms, or by private contractors. In any event the predominant number of M7 were built at Nine Elms rather than Eastleigh. Can anyone else advise?  Das48 (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)