Talk:BR Standard Class 6

message: This would have meant a new design of boiler. However a 2-8-2 with a "Bogie-bissel" would certainly have been an interesting proposition, similar to Brian Hollingsworth's, (Hollingsworth, Brian: "How to drive a steam locomotive. Astragal Books London (1979) page138) except that he suggested a 9F boiler and an ordinary poney truck. --John of Paris 17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ivatt and Riddle Locomotives" by some author i can't remember right now (will check when I get access soon) states that Riddles is on the record as saying that he believes a 4-8-0 would have been a better design for the increase in adhesion that would have been very useful on the hilly routes that it was used on in Scotland. --Tombomp (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 4-8-0?

message: This is a nice, well-referenced article, very close to GA with only a few issues to be addressed:
*The lead says "Ten examples were constructed ...", but they weren't examples, they were the real thing. Why not just say "Ten were constructed ..."?
*"... earmarked for construction" sounds a bit informal. What about "... scheduled for construction"?
*"... complaints of the difficulty in steaming the locomotive and adhering to timetables being common". Was it was the difficulty in steaming the loco that made adhering to timetables difficult, or were they two unrelated problems. If they were, what was it about the locos that made adhering to timetables difficult?
*The lead talks about the "BR standard class 7", but the Background section talks about the "Standard Class 7 'Britannias'". It's not immediately obvious to a reader that these are the same without following the links. The capitalisation also ought to be consistent.
*The article says that a wide firebox was needed because of the inferior quality of imported coal, but almost immediately below that it says that the wider firebox was "utilised to spread the weight evenly over the axles". Perhaps it did both, but the impression given is that those two statements are contradictory.
*E.S. Cox is introduced in the Naming the locomotives and modifications without any explanation as to who he or she is.
*"The 'Clans' had a mixed reception when first introduced to British Railways locomotive crews due to the fact that there were only 10 locomotives in a class that was mostly confined to the North West of the railway network." Why would that make their reception "mixed"?
*There's some overlinking in the article. Common things like "camera", "chimney" or "steel" shouldn't be linked.
*I'm not clear about the ordering situation for these locos. The Construction history section says that there was an initial order for 25, but that only 10 of those were built. But the following section says that the operational info gathered from those 10 allowed a new Mark 2 version to be planned "featuring modifications that would have created a better locomotive. This became known by its Crewe Works Order number, Lot 242." So was the initial order for 25 cancelled after the first 10 were built? That seems strange, given that there was such an "immediacy of demand" that the first 10 had to be rushed out the door. Why did they stop building after those first 10 if there was such a demand?
*The Crewe Works order number is given inconsistently as "Crewe Works Order Lot 242" and "Crewe Works Order number, Lot 242".
*From the Preservation section: "None have survived, though a start has been made on constructing a new locomotive of the missing batch of 15". I don't think you can really say that locos that were never built are "missing".
*"A single chimney was incorporated into the design, although this was to create problems later on." That's a bit of a teaser. What kind of problems?
*I think that there's a general problem with the use of quotes in a number of the railway articles, including this one. The WP:MOS recommends that single quotes are only used within quotations, and that double quotes should normally be used. So, for instance, "Clan" Class. But as "Clan" is actually a name, I think it properly ought to be written as Clan Class, which is how I notice that it's written in the navigation box at the bottom of the article. Same goes for Pacific-type as well of course. I think that would also be consistent with the use of italics in other categories of article.
I'm not going to stick on that last point, even though I think it would significantly improve the look of the article, because GA doesn't mandate complete compliance with the Manual of Style, only in certain key areas. It seems to me that all the issues I've raised can be dealt with fairly readily, and so I'm putting this article on hold to give time for the work to be carried out. Well done to the editors for all the detailed work that's been done so far.
I'll put this article in my watchlist, so if there's anything in this review that you don't agree with, or you want to discuss further, then post it here.
--Malleus Fatuarum 12:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review