User talk:Bulleid Pacific/Archive 2

SR West Country Class

Good morning (GMT time) and thank you for listing SR West Country Class as a Good Article Candidate. This article has been reviewed in accordance with the GA Criteria, and I am pleased to say that it has passed all six requirements, and the article has been awarded GA status.

Kind regards,
anthony^[cfc] 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC) |}

SR Class Q1

Hi. Have a look at the edit history. I sneaked in an edit while you were busy :o) You may find it useful.

Good luck with the getting GA status and, as I mention elsewhere, thanks for sorting out the "Neville" reference. (It was already (low down) on my ToDo list -- WP:THOMAS a continual battle against such drivel! Sigh!)

EdJogg 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of LSWR N15 Class

The article LSWR N15 Class you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:LSWR N15 Class for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 13:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

SR Class Q1

I've left some comments on the talk page, it's very close to making GA. Let me know if you'd like me to review it again after you make the required changes. I enjoyed it, by the way! The Rambling Man 11:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now also promoted SR Class Q1 to GA. Well done once again! The Rambling Man 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SR Leader Class

I made a small modification to the article for WP:MOS and WP:CITE but now it's GA. Well done. The Rambling Man 12:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant job,congratulations.--Old Moonraker 18:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

SR Merchant Navy Class

Again, it was so close I made a couple of minor changes and now it's a GA. Well done again. The Rambling Man 10:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

LSWR 0415 Class

Another one for you. Well done. Once again I've made a few MOS changes which I've discussed on the talk page, I'd be grateful if you could read these for your future articles. All the best. The Rambling Man 12:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Southern Railway N Class now GA

I've promoted Southern Railway N Class to GA in accordance with your changes. Well done, yet again. However, one small (tiny) thing is bothering me at the moment, this article has Southern Railway in the title while all the others have SR. I think we need to be consistent. What do you think? The Rambling Man 18:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That'd be by moving the article. If you don't feel confident on how to do that, let me know each article you've written with SR etc and each new title which you feel is consistent and correct and I'll do it for you. The Rambling Man 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but regardless of what appears in the template at the bottom of each of your pages, what, in your train-expert opinion would be the most accurate way of describing each locomotive? Are they more commonly referred to as SR or Southern Railway? Either way it doesn't matter too much, it's just the consistency I'm looking for. I can happily change both the template and all associated articles without too much hassle, what do you think? Oh, and reviewing your articles has been a pleasure, and glad that you've picked up a few of the tips I've given you about the WP:MOS stuff. Best wishes, The Rambling Man 19:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well keep up the good work, and by all means let me know if I can help you further in your illustrious endeavours. The Rambling Man 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

SR West Country Class peer review & potential FA

By all means. I'll pop over there as soon as I can to offer comments. I'm sure you're already aware that FA reviews are a lot more detailed and sometimes can feel almost personal! I'll do my best to (a) give you my advice and help with edits and (b) help field the concerns of others, should there be any. All the best, The Rambling Man 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My first round of comments added. Unleash hell! The Rambling Man 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

SR locomotive names

Hi again, while going over SR U Class I noticed some inconsistency in the naming of the various locomtive classes for Souther Railway:

• SR U Class
• SR Class V
• LSWR N15 Class
• LB&SCR A1 Class
• Southern Railway U1 Class

I think something needs to be done to all the articles to align the naming convention. The Rambling Man 11:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rail Transport Barnstar

Bulleid Pacific, in recognition for all your work in getting several articles about British steam locomotives up to GA quality, I hereby award you this Rail Transport Barnstar. Slambo (Speak) 17:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes

I've added some comments to the peer review. Cheers, ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 22:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

• ..and a few more. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 21:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope, I think you're good to go now! ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep, I'd say submit it to FAC now. OK, It may not pass first time as FAC is more painful than GA but you'll get a lot of useful feedback from non rail-enthusiast reviewers. ELIMINATORJR ^TALK 22:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Aargh. Another collision!! Our editing styles are very different: you go in for many small edits, filling-up peoples' watchlists (:o)); whereas I tend to go for big one-hit changes...

There were quite a few individual sentences that seemed to me to be in the wrong sections. I have corrected these and reorganised the sections into a more chronological order. (Along with some other changes I spotted in passing.)

Following the edit-conflict I have copied my revised version (minus the categories) to a new sandbox: User:EdJogg/sandbox2. Comparing the two versions will not be easy due to the scale of the moves, but your recent edits were quite small, so I suggest that if you like the revised version you copy it across from the sandbox and re-add your recent tweaks.

EdJogg 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, the 'smaller firebox' bit is not quite right. I added the bit about the firebox to explain the reasons for choosing a Pacific wheel arrangement (from the 4-6-2 page: 'a larger firebox'), so this may need further work... EdJogg 13:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see what you mean. But I think we should put the larger firebox into its context, as regards to smaller designs ie. 4-6-0 etc. What do you think?--Bulleid Pacific 14:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was trying to imply - you could mention the 'smaller than MN firebox' in the design section instead (should be simple if combined with 'boiler' somewhere, as in 'smaller boiler and firebox'). But that paragraph is MUCH better now and I think it ties the ideas together.

Have you had a chance to look at my sandbox version (see above)? If you like the order (and the text), the whole can be copied across, otherwise I'll try to do it piecemeal (as long as you don't apply too many more edits in the meantime!). Alternatively, I'm happy for you to edit the sandbox version before copying if you prefer.

EdJogg 15:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, been and had a look at WC/BB, and MN pages. All I can say is I can't fault them... All I've done is add a few references. (Brian Reed's Profile is quite well balanced, and deserves mention even if generally hostile to Bulleid technology). I do wonder however if two separate articles are really justified for locomotives that were so very similar in general conception. Have also added a comment in the discussion page for the chain valve gear.--John of Paris 18:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope to have some time for a thorough read and review tonight. Slambo (Speak) 13:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger?

I have had a go at merging the MN and WC/BB articles. As they stand there is much repetition and redundant statements due to all three classes being mechanically so similar. I have nonetheless maintained two articles, one dealing with the originals and the other with the rebuilds. I have put them in sandboxes(User:John of Paris/sandbox 3 Bulleid Pacifics (original) User:John of Paris/sandbox 4 Bulleid Pacifics (rebuilt). See what you think: there will certainly be more edits to do if ever you should decide to proceed--John of Paris 14:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)