Talk:SECR N class

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
 
I made quite a few minor formatting changes for WP:MOS, but my major concern here is the lack of wikilinking, just three outside of the lead.  I think this isn't quite up to the standard of other recent locomotive articles, if the linkages could be improved to broaden the scope of interest.  Hence, I'll put the review on hold until such a time my concern is addressed.  Cheers!  The Rambling Man 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your expedient attention to my review comments, hereby satisfied.  GA awarded. The Rambling Man 18:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: I have observed that some articles on locomotive classes are labelled as follows "SR N Class" whereas others are "SR Class N". Which is the preferred method, and if there is not one, then please can we agree on one in order to have consistency in naming. Olana North (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are some articles SR Class X and others SR X Class ?? 

message: * Wasn't the initial livery SECR grey, with engine number in white on the tender?
*Think the Churchward references need tightening up. He used long travel valves- did the N class use similar?Ning-ning (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy editing notes

message: The wording of the first sentence is rather odd. The N class was designed prior to many designs including the Q1 and Merchant Navies, but there is no more explanation of its link to the K class. Maybe this section would be better worded to say that the K class was designed soon after, or in parallel, using common components, to meet a different traffic need. 
The K class article uses the phrase "basing the mechanical elements on those used on the slightly older N class design to standardise parts and ease locomotive maintenance" and does not suffer the same problem.
The K class is also mentioned in the final sentence of the second paragraph, so the whole section will require a re-think to include the text in a meaningful way.
EdJogg (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, I've removed all trace of the K class from the background, as it confused the issue, and it wasn't really the right place to put it. I've now tied it into the first batch, and have tried to make it clear that whilst the N was designed in 1914, the K class derivative was actually produced first. Whew! --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "...2-6-0 wheel arrangement, which would allow the class to operate on the SECR's poor-quality track."
Probably ought to state how the leading bogie would make such a difference -- may mean a brief mention of what was poor quality about the track.
Also, why 'poor quality track', and where (whole network, parts, main routes?) ?
EdJogg (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Background"

message: ::"...2-6-0 wheel arrangement, which would allow the class to operate on the SECR's poor-quality track."
Probably ought to state how the leading bogie would make such a difference -- may mean a brief mention of what was poor quality about the track.
Also, why 'poor quality track', and where (whole network, parts, main routes?) ?
EdJogg (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why 2-6-0?

message: Shouldn't the colour schemes be named "Maunsell Grey", "Olive Green", etc, to indicate the name of a specific colour? "Maunsell grey" would be OK, as Maunsell is a proper noun, but for consistency should state "olive green"? Thoughts anyone? -- EdJogg (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I've long been puzzled by this apparent convention in locomotove articles. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think when a CME's name is attached to a colour (apart from Stroudley's Improved Engine Green) it's a kind of temporary label, like Drummond green livery is distinct from Adam's (but there's no Drummond green per se). It might be better to remove Maunsell's name, and just have grey, or mid-grey. Most of the time paint names don't seem to be capitalised. Ning-ning (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article refers to Urie's sage green, but the LSWR article refers only to Urie's holly green and Urie's olive green. No sage. Ning-ning (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes- the designation in LSWR articles does seem (on superficial reading) to be very inconsistent- one article refers to "Drummond's sage green"! Ning-ning (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency of capitalisation?

message: Final sentence of "SECR and SR" section states:
::"The final batch of 15 locomotives, built between 1932 and 1934, were therefore numbered 1400–1414 from new."
Simple question, why "therefore"?? These numbers have no obvious relationship to the earlier numbers.
EdJogg (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbering

message: *This punctuation in this sentence makes it seem ambiguous: "The North British Locomotive Company built 85, Robert Stephenson and Company 20, and Kitson & Co. 14 for allocation to a kit of parts at Woolwich."
:*Does it mean that all 119 boilers were allocated to a kit of parts at Woolwich (just one kit of parts?), or only the 14 from Kitson? If it means all of them then there's a comma missing after "Kitson & Co.". --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Second "Woolwich" batch and exports to Ireland

message: Just noted that the power classification field mentions the LSWR - surely a cut-and-paste error??
EdJogg (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I may be being pedantic here, but should we say 'left-hand driving position' (or right-hand, where approp.) since 'drive' might imply something mechanical (eg drive-belt, drive-shaft) rather than the location of the man doing the driving? -- EdJogg (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Left-hand drive etc

message: Barring the first sentence and the first half of the second, the "Background" section as it stands seems to be largely focused on the N class' design, and duplicates information that can be found in the "First SECR batch" subsection ("The class incorporated features from the successful GWR 4300 class, and was the first use of Churchward design principles outside the GWR"). Do you think the information in the "Background" section would be more appropriately placed as an introductory paragraph to the "Design details and construction history" section (without a subheading)? "Design details and construction history" might also be rendered more concisely as "Design and construction"; I don't think the shorter heading would lose any of the intended meaning. Steve T  • C 00:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean by a misplaced reference; I just meant that one sentence in "Background" was repeated, almost word-for-word in "First SECR batch". EDIT: Ah, I see you've removed that now. Steve T  • C 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Background / Design details and construction history

message: The copyright status of the original image on this article, :File:BR Class N 31871 Plymouth 1948.jpg was questioned at the FA Review, and an OTRS request raised (since there was apparently informal email approval to use it). Just to note that the result of the OTRS request was that the image was deleted from Commons (D'oh!!!)
For further details on the discussion, see the link to the FAR in the box at the top.
EdJogg (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image query

message: The statement "One of the "Woolworth" batch, this locomotive was purchased and restored for use on the Mid-Hants Railway from 1977, and is currently stored pending overhaul" is referenced to a source dated 1966. Obviously this can't be right! – iridescent 21:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved the ref to the middle of the sentence. Ning-ning (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The current state of the Background section after several days at FAC I think ought to underline why this article will continue to struggle, and further reinforces the issues raied by Tony in his oppose vote:
Trying to play catchup with these ever-changing prose issues is rather a hopeless task, and one that may even lead me to oppose on the same grounds as Tony. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ultimately, it's because it's a square peg, round hole issue. The "Background" section isn't necessary because the information it presents isn't anything to do with the background; it's better suited to the "Design" section, where individual statements would sit more comfortably among friends. Steve T  • C 01:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're probably right. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a comment 

message: * "Maunsell became CME on the proviso that he would take stock of the situation by improving existing designs, and would eventually introduce new engines to progressively replace obsolete types and cope with the workload." Whose proviso- his or theirs? How would a CME whose job entails improving existing designs and introducing new ones which would cope with the workload differ from any other CME? (apart from Webb and Whale ;) Ning-ning (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: Queried by Steve. Originally pebbles; I added the "beach" assuming they were from a similar source to LBSCR ballast i.e flint nodules from a coastal source, not good for ballast compared with angular granite or other roadstone chippings because they're round in profile and tend to move more easily. But that's two assumptions (source and behaviour) without a ref, so if it needs explaining can someone... Ning-ning (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Beach pebbles

message: *"Midland Railway influences were evident in the placement of fittings as another of Maunsell's assistants, James Clayton, worked for this railway prior to joining the SECR. Examples include the location of the water top-feed into the boiler inside a dome" . Don't think this is correct, as I haven't yet found a photo of a pre-1913 MR loco with top feed into a dome. Ning-ning (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is- I see Clayton was responsible for the design of Wainwright's D class 4-4-0 cab and splashers as well! Ning-ning (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: First SECR Batch

message: The current wording seems just fine to me; as long as that "simpler and more functional" is well-cited I haven't a problem with it. Sorry to clog this talk page up further (though better here than at the FAC page, where looooong reviews can put off new reviewers from taking a look), but I just wanted to mention something in the "First SECR batch" section:In 1922, the decision was taken to modify the cylinder arrangement of No. 822 to increase the power and route availability of the N class concept. A third "inside" cylinder was fitted between the frames during construction, and the "outside" cylinders were reduced in diameter to accommodate the inside cylinder and its associated valve linkages.Here we have three sentences written in the passive voice; I'm perfectly happy to use it where appropriate, but with three in quick succession it renders the segment a little weak. I think this segment would be much more dynamic if at least some of it was converted to active voice, the first of the three especially. Now, I realise that may not be possible, if we don't know the agent of that change (to say "So-and-so modified..."), in which case we can still lessen the effect by putting the focus on the action—the modification—rather than the decision to make the modification. The design change was carried out, yes? In which case, it could easily read: In 1922, the decision was taken to modify the cylinder arrangement of No. 822  to increase the power and route availability of the N class concept. A third "inside" cylinder was fitted between the frames during construction, and the "outside" cylinders were reduced in diameter to accommodate the inside cylinder and its associated valve linkages.Didn't want to make this change without consulting with the experts, so I'll just leave it here for your consideration. What might count against this change is that "In 1922"; the work was completed in March 1923, so unless work began in 1922 (rather than just the decision to do the work), it might not fit. All the best, Steve T • C 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified this as requested, but it may need a look over. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Seems to read OK now, but Steve is looking from a different angle than I am used to doing, so I can't comment on the active/passive bit. EdJogg (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose discussion 

message: With the lead editor ("BP") currently on holiday, certain editorial decisions concerning factual content may need to be deferred (as he has all the reference books!). The omission or amendment of these should not adversely affect the progress towards FA, since the article text will be left in a manner that makes sure of this!
* "Operational details" -- N class inspiration of other designs: this diff removed the text "such as", leaving the prose indicating that there were (only) two designs so inspired. The reviewer notes that if there were more than two, the text should either list 'all' the designs, or add "among others" at the end of the sentence (after the ref?) to indicate this. The omission does not affect the accuracy of the present text.
* "Operational details" -- Steam pipes -- snakey sentence: this diff shows my re-working of the sentence relating to new cylinder fitment. I've lost the 'exhaust arrangements', since I don't know how that would have changed with the work done. I've left the two sentences connected by a colon as the steam pipe changes were related to the cylinder changes, and this one-to-one relationship is lost if the colon is replaced by a full-stop. The words 'steam pipes' are repeated intentionally -- under normal circumstances 'steam' could be lost from the second occurrence, but the words are very nearly hyphenated here. The down-side of my re-wording is the slight implication that the reconditioning of the frames was only the fitting of the steam pipes: this may well have been the case, but we'll need someone knowledgeable to confirm this!
There are likely to be more queries, but I'll save this now as a starting point.
EdJogg (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queries for BP! 

message: Following a request for an OTRS ticket to cover the only photograph we have, I decided to do a Google image search to see what else was available. The results are below, and cover the first 400 or so results of the search "N class locomotive":
* Two here: http://www.stteath.co.uk/history.htm (source unknown)
* One here, with lots of other goodies (incl a pic of Shaw Savill) http://www.steamtraingalleries.co.uk/steam_in_the_sixties_sr.html
* One here (after countless luggage labels): http://www.swindonsotherrailway.co.uk/ll.html
* Excellent colour preservation pic: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=238454&nseq=4031
* BR era colour pic: http://www.kentrail.co.uk/bricklayers_arms.htm
* 1960s BW pic: http://www.trenoweth.co.uk/NCR/route5.html
I have ignored about the same number again, taken from Maunsell Society newsletters, as most were poorly reproduced scan of photocopy?), but they might be able to provide some originals...?
I leave it to other editors to try and source the copyright holders for these images. Good luck!
EdJogg (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Holcroft's Loco Adventure volume 1 has a works photo, side view in photo grey, lettered SECR. This is probably useable under PD-old. Ning-ning (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

text: My take on this is that I prefer to use NRM photographs, as nine times out of ten, they have purchased the copyright to vast collections of photographs on behalf of the nation. This means that by way of it being part of the Museum of Science and Industry, the copyright is attributable to the British Government (which provides the funding). However, I usually like leaving this sort of thing to other people unless I back it up with references.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures desperately needed... 

message: From a reading of a book about the LNER (!) it appears that Churchward modified the Belpaire firebox by having the side plates curved, thus increasing the circulation of water in areas where problems with cracking had occured. On the LMS they stuck with straight-sided boxes for some time (e.g. Royal Scot). Although it's probably of some significance in the N class design, I'd be surprised if there's an appropriate cite available. Ning-ning (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Churchward influence

message: :"The steam reverser differed from previous SECR practice, being a hand wheel with screw linked directly to the radius rods."
This is all being very educational... Questions that immediately spring to mind are:
:#What was the previous SECR practice?
:#What are radius rods?
:#What is the 'screw' associated with the hand wheel?
I would suggest that steam reverser is incorrect terminology here: I think a 'screw reverser' is being described (see Cutoff (steam engine)), rather than a steam(-powered) reverser (see same article).
If that is the case, the text could be modified to something like:
:A screw reverser was fitted, providing finer adjustment of the cutoff, and hence greater efficiency than the stepped adjustments provided by the reversing lever control, which was previous SECR practice.
...which needs much more polish, agreed, but hopefully gets you thinking in the right direction.
Incidentally, radius rod is an automotive term, and although Walschaerts valve gear does mention 'radius rod', that article would be of little use to anyone who didn't already know how it works -- so much unexplained terminology! (I have since expanded an image which makes life a lot easier).
EdJogg (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As an update, the SECR used steam reversers on its locomotives; the SER's James Stirling (1835–1917) was the first engineer to use the system, and Wainwright adopted it for his locomotives. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Design

message: Some jargon has sneaked-in:
:"Another trial saw the addition of a second  to No. 825, which gave better support to the  and helped protect it from spillage from the driving wheel  fillers."
These will need linking, explaining or avoiding.
EdJogg (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Performance of the class and modifications

message: The text states "It re-entered service as No. 1816 in August 1936", which is cited to Whitehouse & Thomas (2002), p. 54. Bradley states (p. 92) "returning to revenue earning service as a standard N on 3 August 1935". It's difficult to imagine a whole year out of service following a rebuild to standard form. I've checked the Whitehouse and Thomas book: and it makes no such statement, and in fact gives only one date: that the conversion occurred "in 1930". Where did the claim of "August 1936" really come from? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Must have been a typo. Also, the Whitehouse reference is somewhat superfluous now, as it was referring to something else that has now been moved. Will change. Bulleid Pacific. --92.6.52.65 (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anderson experiment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SECR N class. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206234821/http://www.maunsell.org.uk/virtual%20shed/oddments/marshall.htm to http://www.maunsell.org.uk/virtual%20shed/oddments/marshall.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SECR N class. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090423032222/http://www.watercressline.co.uk/earlymhr.htm to http://www.watercressline.co.uk/earlymhr.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Looking at this, the following are notably missing:
* Tables, particularly
** Construction table; showing works, lot numbers, years built.
** A full list of engines, with full numbering, dates, and notes.
** Withdrawal table showing the quantity withdrawn per year.
* Photographs, particularly of the Bachmann model.
I cannot conclude therefore that this should be a featured article, and request that the above infomration is added ass oon as possible. Tony May (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome and free to add the information you outlined to improve the article. If after that, you still believe if should be demoted from FA, then follow the procedure at WP:FAR. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

text: Please see WP:WIAFA. Which of the four criteria is applicable here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This artice is not FA quality