Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado

Is Tornado an it or a she?

Both are used in the article. I don't know which is WP standard, but it looks untidy to mix and match. 81.158.1.233 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where 'it' is used at all. Currently in the article, the locomotive is either referred to as Tornado or she, but as far as I can tell, never 'it'. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How about "Once on the main line, Tornado is not expected to leave it again until its ten-year fire-tube boiler re-certification in late 2018." It's also troubling that sometimes the name Tornado is not italicised, though mostly it is. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Notes and references

Something seems to be currently wrong with the notes and references section LNER_Peppercorn_Class_A1_60163_Tornado#References - the floating numbers at the top.

Also the diagram (above the references)- is not - it's a picture. I'd suggest to get rid of it. A technical drawing would be a good idea though.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:LNER Peppercorn Class A1 60163 Tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • I have done a copyedit. In particular, there were a number of places where the punctuation came after the ref tag. Also, MOS:CAPS states that all-caps should not be used, even when it appears in the original, since all-caps is a typographical consideration, not one of orthography. The article is slightly underlinked, particularly regarding technical terms such as tender, boiler, smokebox etc. There are many places one-sentence paragraphs. This should be avoided in good, encyclopædic prose. In general, the prose did not seem to have been thoroughly copyeditited, which is highly recommended before nominating for GA. The copyedit I have performed is more than can be expenced by a GA nominator, and the lack of MoS compliance is sufficiently poor that it could have been used to fail the article.
   • In infoboxes, it is recommended to use abbreviations for units.
   • The milestones section does not impress me much. Instead of a list of years and achievements, create a prose section that describes the key accomplishments. As the article stands, despite its length, it lacks much on the actual building of the engine, save this list of years. Again, under the section "Changes from original", avoid making a list of modification; instead, write it out in prose. This way it is also easier to make comments on those areas that need it. What are "OLE regulations"? The term in neither described, nor wikilinked, until two paragraphs further down.
   • I removed the paragraph: "As such, despite not realising Porta's dream of producing an efficient viable second-generation locomotive, capable of challenging the oil-dependent, modern-day economy, the Tornado eventually proved its detractors wrong by proving that a main line steam locomotive could still be built in Britain." It reads poorly, says virtually nothing, is stacked with weasel words, and is not referenced.
   • Would it not be better if the sections "tender", "boiler" and "motiona and wheelset" were made === and made subordinate "design".
   • This is a very vauge claim: "No standard gauge boiler had been built in Britain since the 1960s, at least not for such a large engine." Either a boiler has been made, or it has not; this sentence contradicts itself.
   • There is repeated use of abbreviations, without stating what they mean, or even linking to them. OLE, ORR, HMRI etc. all mean nothing to a person not deeply into British railways. This article will be read by many people with little knowledge of rail transport, as well as many people, though interested in railways, may be from other parts of the world, and will have little knowledge of British terminology.
   • The lead says it will be back to Darlington after ten years, while the text sais five years. Numbers under ten (optionally twelve) should always be spelled.
   • The article is very long, maybe as much as twice as long as ideal. While I will not this agains the article in the GA review, I would recommend the authors to look at summary style to see if it is possible to demerge part of the article into new article, and just summarize it here.
   • There are far too many external links. Both the article and the Commons are filled with images, so why do we need any external image links at all? Two of the external links are dead (404), the ones from therailwaychannel.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are some stray refs at the end of the page. Move them into the appropriate place in the article. Some references are not in {{cite}} templates.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am placing the article on hold. The authors have seven days to resolve the issues mentioned, for the article to pass. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, I didn't nominate it for GA, as I personally didn't think it would pass. Incidentally, I had started a major rewrite a few days ago offline, which already addresses many of the issues, and I'll incorporate the ones I haven't caught from this review with thanks (you are correct, it's never had a proper copyedit, I am usually out of time after simply updating it). However, I don't specifically agree with some issues raised:

• The milestones list is quite helpfull imo, and is not meant to just cover construction. Lists are helpfull at times, especially for timelines
• I thought construction was well covered in the article, under Manufacturing?
  • It is; this was just a note to myself while I went through the article that I forgot to cross out (I was doing it offline over several days). Sorry about that.
• External image links: While commons is comprehensive, most are not of the quality of those on the EL list
  • Wikipedia:External links is fairly rigid on this: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum." and "try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website". Some would say this amount of links is even a violation of WP:NOT. While I will leave the exact number of external links to the discretion of the authors, the current length is in violation with WP:EL, and the article cannot pass GA in this state.
• On demerging, I am scratching my head as to what can be feasibly spun out as stand alone articles? E.g. Construction of Tornado or Testing of Tornado, neither seems a good basis for a sub-article. In the new draft, I am at least implementing notes, which brings the length of the main text down by reducing non-relevant info. Other than moving Fundraising to the Trust article maybe, I am at a loss as to what else could be spun out, and I am loath to actually remove any information just for length issues, as it is all pretty good info (respecting anybody's assessment of what might be trivial info) - again some of which I am porting to notes. Rather than on hold. I suggest postpone and maybe relist when I get the rewrite done.

MickMacNee (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I also could not see any local sub-sections, but in a way I felt that the article was some-what of an information overload. If you want to rewrite the article, and do not want the time pressure, I would suggest waiting a day for other comments, and then I can 'fail' the article, and you renominate it again. Instead, think of this as a peer review. One more idea, is that in general (there will always be exceptions), the image should be right/left-aligned so the train is heading towards the center of the page. Right now it looks a bit messy due this and the images not being stacked every other right/left. I will let you try to sort it out during your rewriting. Otherwise, I must say I am impressed with the work that has gone into the article, and how much there can be said about a single locomotive that has not even been in service for a year. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Since there have been no objections in a day, I will fail the article. I believe it is much better if it is given a thorough copyedit and clean-up. When this is done, I hope to see it as a GA nomination again. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Tornado vs Jaguar

Hot off the press. Tornado has been hired by the BBC for one of Top Gear's famous races which is being staged tomorrow (25 April). Jeremy Clarkson in a Jaguar will race the train from London to Edinburgh. McWomble (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Subject heading "Draughting"

I was momentarily misled by this heading, which I took to be about (possible improvements from the original design in) the arrangements for drawing air through the grate and the tubes. The section is actually about the drawings. I suggest changing to "Drawings". (But this is my first ever contribution, so I'm not venturing into editing the page directly.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardGMellish (talk • contribs) 11:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Diagram

Is the 'diagram' of Tornado really necessary? There are already enough images of the engine, and this one is not particularly high quality (it looks like it was made in MS Paint in my opinion). TurboJUK (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing it, there were already comments in the archive about it, it seems the consensus is, it isn't needed. MickMacNee (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

tractive effort

you have given horspower, tractive effort is a force not a power, and is such a unit measured in lbf or newtons.

Tornado works when electrics don't

I have been sent the following news item: http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2009/december/21/steam_wins_the_day.aspx - what can we get from that? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fastest operational steam locomotive in Britain

In this section it states that the trust was persuing perrmission to run Tornado a t a speed of 90mph. I would just like to point out that the A1 trust has recived aproval to run Tornado at 90mph. So if anone would care to update that section I would appreciate it as i am new. Bmccoy78 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds interesting; but unless a WP:RELIABLE source can be found, such facts cannot be added. Is this something you found in a book, a magazine or website? If you add the details below here, we can look into it further. If it turns out to be WP:VERIFIABLE, it can go into the article. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"Fastest operational steam locomotive in Britain" This really is Weasel words a less atention grabbin subheading should be used here 88.109.2.86 (talk) 13:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Engineering Heritage Award

I've added the 2009 Engineering Heritage Award in the list of key dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallata (talk • contribs) 13:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Project Milestones?

The first half of this list do look like project milestones, however the latter entries look less and less notable - was it really a project milestone to visit Paddington station? Suggest editing some of the less notable ones out.

Project milestone from wikipedia page: "Within the framework of project management, a milestone is the end of a stage that marks the completion of a work package or phase, typically marked by a high level event such as completion, endorsement or signing of a deliverable, document or a high level review meeting." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ghoti (talk • contribs) 17:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I came here to make that same point myself. The list is much too long, and has too much minutiae for a general-audience encyclopedia. ("First synchronous smooth wheel motion" is a good example; that's the sort of thing that goes on a dedicated Tornado/new-build site, not on Wikipedia.) It gets worse after mid-2009, when despite dozens of entries there are hardly any references. And it gets worse still lower down: we do not need every first appearance at such-and-such a line/station/gala to be mentioned.

The Top Gear race is notable, as it received wide media coverage. The repaint is probably also notable. Reaching 10,000 miles on the Torbay Express? Not a chance. I don't have enough time right now to have a go at fixing the list, but if someone else wants to do so that would be great. For the moment I've simply deleted the line about visiting Norwich station. This seems entirely non-notable, and to compound matters was accompanied by the name of the promoting company. It read like an advert, so it's gone. Loganberry (Talk) 15:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)