Talk:British Rail Class 47

message: I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have failed the article at this time. The main reason for doing so is the lack of inline citations which is a recent requirement in the GA criteria. All information that may be questioned over its verifiability must be cited. Also, the "Preservation" and "Re-engineering" sections should be expanded upon or merged into alternate sections since they contain very little information. According to the Manual of Style, for "Fleet Details", only Fleet should be capitalized. Before renominating, look over the GA criteria and consider getting a peer review to see how else the article could be improved. If you do not agree with this review then you can seek an alternate review at Wikipedia:Good article review. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions. --Nehrams2020 06:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: I have read the article and have found problems with it, they are listed below:
* Your references are not in the correct layout try looking at the Ford BA Falcon article to get the idea of what references should look like. 
* Try making the introduction bigger so it includes information from the rest of the article.
* Don’t just use imperial measurements, also use metric measurements, in your article it states “straight-six unit producing 2,750bhp…” try including metric measurements so it converts Horsepower to Kilowatts.  
* Chose a good picture to go at the top of the article on the right, so readers get a good idea of what the train looks like.
* Put the incidents section at the bottom part of the article just above the Fleet details.
If you have any questions about this, then please go to my talk page and leave a message.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems found with your article 

message: * "The most noticeable result of the dieselisation of Britain's railways following the Modernisation Plan of the late 1950s," - a little confused! did dieselisation form part of the modernisation plan or did it come after the modernisation plan. Also, the wikilink for "modernisation plan" is british rail and i don't think is very appropriate
** removed this sentence as it's too confusing and also the pointless wikilink - it's dealt with in the next paragraph anyway
: Please provide a link or point to a link for the phrase - "making them easily the most numerous class of British mainline diesel"
* " though five were fitted with a V12 12LVA24 power unit (see separate article - British Rail Class 48)." - i think this needs tweaking. how, i am not sure.** moved this to "Origins" section where it reads more smoothly and the wikilink is better placed
* "still in mainline use today" - removed 'mainline'
** put it back, and changed to "mainline and private" - I wanted to emphasise that a number were still running on the mainline
* "They were numbered D1500-D1999, and D1100-D1111." - this sentence needs explanation
** expanded the sentence to explain it
* Need references for 
** "This significantly improved reliability by reducing stresses on the power plant, whilst not causing a noticeable reduction in performance."
** "Two locomotives, 47798 Prince William and 47799 Prince Henry, were dedicated to use on the Royal Train, and were designated as Class 47/7c."
*** Both done
* "Reduction of the fleet only started in earnest as this fluid situation stabilised and freight companies started ordering their own new locomotive fleets." - need more data here. how did the overall figure come down from 300+ to 31.
** expanded explanation a bit - the actual mechanics of the fleet reductions are *very* convoluted so I've summarised them
* " only around 30 examples are currently" - the exact number from list attached is 31. also, why use of "example"?
** fixed the discrepancy, though the number fluctuates so often that it may be worth leaving tyhe sentence as "around 30".  'Example' is railway jargon and I've changed it.
* "47208 became the fifth Class 47 to be withdrawn" - but the section has only 2 listed prior to this. please explain the withrdrawal of the other two.
** Done this
* In the 'Fleet details' table, can you please add the data on the number of engines built.
** Done
Please revert back to me once you address these comments and i shall re-review the article for GA. I think that this article has sufficient data for FAC --Kalyan 12:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is good to go for GA. --Kalyan 09:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review comments

message: Why has the contents/navigation bar been 'turned off'? --Jorvik 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It broke the formatting of the page.  Try removing the first __NOTOC__ line and previewing the results, and you'll see what I mean. ELIMINATORJR 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really break the article layout, and what it does can be used to good advantage with a bit of lateral thinking, but you are breaking Wikipedia's formatting! (SouthernElectric 16:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents bar 

message: These locomotives were not prototypes for the Bush Type 4, the design of which pre-dates those prototypes - just look at the dates of introduction in any reference book! These locomotives were manufactures prototypes for what became the class 50s - English Electric winning the contract, but having the cab front design changed by the BRB design panel decree. (SouthernElectric 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but the way it's written that is exactly what is being suggested, the paragraph is under the "Origins" sub-heading which is totally wrong, (as you and I know) the origins of the Brush Type 4 pre date these three prototypes, in fact I can't see any reason to even mention the prototypes as they have little to do with the Brush Type 4 apart from sharing body styling. (SouthernElectric 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falcon, Lion (and unmentioned DP2) 

message: I've been mulling if this over for a few days and really do feel I need to voice my concerns; Looking at the references one sees just a long list of web citations, there is only two non web citations in a list of 41, there seems to be to much reliance on these web citations (such as "Class47.com"). I'm sure that most if not all information will be available elsewhere - if not, how does one know if Class47.com etc. have got the correct information and this article is thus not just republishing web-myth, if a web citation can't be backed up with a third-party printed publication citation should a citation even be offered? It's not as though there are not print or magazine sources - see WP:V#SELF and thus the possibility of someone placing a  template at the head, I'm tempted to do so myself but feel that I should raise my concerns here first. SouthernElectric 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive use of web-site citations 

message: I removed the following comment made by  from the article text:
:On the contrary One railway and FM rail still operate a plentiful fleet.
Assuming that this is true, it will need to be better written in an encyclopedic style with appropriate citations.  Slambo (Speak) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not even true.  ONE don't own Class 47s, they hire them occasionally; and FM Rail no longer exists. ELIMINATORJR 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One always have at least one Cotswold Rail 47 on hire, to be used as a Thunderbird. It's often stabled at Colchester. Still yet to experience the famed Brush thrash on a rescue mission though, myself, although they are fairly regular (at least a couple of times a month) occurences. Muchclag (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved editorial comment 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :British Rail Class 47's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Earnshaw6":
From British Rail Class 45: 
From British Rail: 
From British Rail Class 40: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , please would you check this out? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:British Rail Class 47]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on British Rail Class 47. 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/20070614195024/http://www.gwsr.com:80/html/47376.html to http://www.gwsr.com/html/47376.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724094922/http://www.c58lg.co.uk/html/mgr_haa_history.html to http://www.c58lg.co.uk/html/mgr_haa_history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108204356/http://www.brushtype4.co.uk:80/bt4_numbers.php?index=1&jndex=0&kndex=0&s_loco=47300 to http://www.brushtype4.co.uk/bt4_numbers.php?index=1&jndex=0&kndex=0&s_loco=47300
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108152126/http://www.brushtype4.co.uk:80/bt4_numbers.php?index=1&jndex=0&kndex=0&s_loco=47981 to http://www.brushtype4.co.uk/bt4_numbers.php?index=1&jndex=0&kndex=0&s_loco=47981
*Added  tag to http://www.class47.co.uk/c47_data_433.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108185026/http://www.brushtype4.co.uk:80/bt4_liveries.php?s_liv=99 to http://www.brushtype4.co.uk/bt4_liveries.php?s_liv=99
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article needs a list of still in use TOPS numbers (47xxx) Like the class 37 has. SageWater (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOPS Serial Numbers? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on British Rail Class 47. 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/20070927210601/http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20Loco%20Tech%20Data/Class47.html to http://www.therailwaycentre.com/New%20Loco%20Tech%20Data/Class47.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111016105708/http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/rv_coupling_system_data/SD001-%20E024.pdf to http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/rv_coupling_system_data/SD001-%20E024.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.class47.co.uk/c47_data_437.php?G=gone
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219134229/http://therailwaycentre.com/Resource_data/Class57.pdf to http://www.therailwaycentre.com/Resource_data/Class57.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210503/http://www.brushtype4.co.uk/bt4_numbers.php?s_loco=D1734 to http://www.brushtype4.co.uk/bt4_numbers.php?s_loco=D1734
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) 00:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Argh! That looks horrible! Is there actually any point in adding these maps, they only shows a random moment, presumably picked because you have the appropriate shedbook to hand? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Worth a try, would improve the look no end. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution 

message: I have a problem with the Fleet Summary Table as it took me more than I moment to realise what information was being presented.
For example take the Harry Needle Rail entry - at first glance reading left to right - one might think that HNR do not own any class 47s - in fact they own three (but non-operational).
Can I suggest moving the 'total' column so that it's to the right of each classification? and maybe add another total column to the right of each owning company so that it's clearer how many locos (in total) are actually owned - both operational and not. Just a suggestion.... Andywebby (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fleet Summary Table