# Talk:SR Q1 class

Please do not place any further Thomas the Tank engine information on this article, as there is already enough information on that page, which one can reach via the link in this article.  Please keep Wikipedia tidy!
Cheers.
--Bulleid Pacific 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are my comments having reviewed the article for WP:GA status:

Follow WP:MOS for section headings, e.g. "The Design" should be "Design", (no "The"), "Livery and Numbering" should be "Livery and Numbering" (no over-capitalisation), "References/Footnotes" should probably be two sections, "References" and "Notes".
Personal pref, wikilink Oliver Bulleid in the lead, he's significant.
Personal pref, Second World War, not World War II (sounds like a movie sequel).  Plus it's inconsistent between the lead and the opening paragraph of the Background section.  Plus there's a World War I later on as well.  NB. The World War I reference is regarding to Bulleid's earlier career in the army transportation service, where he rose in rank from Lieutenant to Major.  I'll change to First World War.--Bulleid Pacific 11:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"'Austerity'" or "austerity" or austerity, consistency needed.
*"This explains their (to many) bizarre appearance." - a bit original research for my liking.  The austere approach to the design explains its functional appearance... something like that perhaps?

"(like Bulleid's "West Country/Battle of Britain" and "Merchant Navy" classes)" why in parentheses?  Just use a pair of commas.
Livery and numbering section has unnecessary subsections in my opinion, it breaks the prose up too much.  I think you could merge all the sections.  Merged Southern sections to build up section with better prose, though section does need to be split for ease of reference as regards livery and time periods involved.--Bulleid Pacific 11:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Placement of 33038 is awkward (on my browser at least), perhaps if the livery & numbering section is reworked into a single section, the image could be placed at the top on the right and would look better.   Ok, I've moved it further up, though it portrays the loco in Nationalised livery, and so it needs to stick with that section.  I think it loos better where it is now.  What do you think?--Bulleid Pacific 11:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You need a reference for the Locomotive in fiction claim.
I think these issues can be easily resolved so I'll put the GA on hold in order to allow time for them.  By all means ignore the personal preferences, they're just suggestions, but do try to be consistent whatever you choose.  The Rambling Man 11:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Done remedial work.  See my own notes for my own reasons on some of the changes.--Bulleid Pacific 11:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:SR Class Q1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
 This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

Where books or journals are being used as references, the relevant pages should also be given.
It's often easier to separate the References into Notes and Bibliography, to make it easier to provide references to different pages in the same book.
The infobox provides imperial to metric conversions, but the body of the article does not.
The Q1 locomotives in fiction section is too small to standalone. Suggest that this information is incorporated into the body of the article.
"... the locomotive was 14 tons lighter than its nearest rival in terms of weight". In what other terms would it be lighter than its nearest rival?
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Currently working on this article, though its getting late.  Will return tomorrow. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now done. Article is due for a major overhaul anyway to prepare it for FA soon.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That looks geat now, thanks. Good luck with the FAC! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The following (in italics) was added to the page today:

All these locomotives therefore carried numbers which started "C" followed by the individual identifier from C1 to C40. This is, reputedly, why they were referred to as "Charlies".
with the edit summary:

Added suggestion for engines being now as 'Charlies', based on modeller's hearsay.
Since this is a GA it's not wise to add such comments, 'hearsay' is not a Reliable Source, and anyway 'Charlies' is already present with a {{fact}} tag in the lede. Anyone got a definite reference for the name 'Charlies' yet? -- EdJogg (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has just been used in one of the preserved steam communities to ridicule WP in general over the factual inaccuracy of WP's articles. Nothing unusual there, but this one is also a GA. Boiler dimensions are missing and those that are here are both uncited, not credible and stated to be simply wrong. Does anyone have good SR sources to work on improving this? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added some from Bradley; is anything lacking from what I added? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

is C h2 the correct thing because im having some doubts that its not right, thanks
73.250.53.193 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

C=three coupled axles; h-superheated; 2=two cylinders. Yes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The class became the basis for Neville the Q1 for Thomas and Friends carrying the number 33010, which was worn by a real Q1 that was scrapped in 1964. 77.234.64.84 (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:IPC also WP:FANCRUFT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)