Talk:SR Leader class/Archive 1

Untitled

Would it not be sensible to merge this article with Leader (locomotive)?--7severn7 19:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done Moonraker88 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeve valves

I've removed reference to the Midland Railway Paget locomotive because the latter did not use sleeve valves per se; it used a different rotary rather tha sliding and oscillating sytem. The reference to the sleeve is confusing but it appears simply to have been a bearing and sealing component rather than the independently moving element of true sleeve valves. Mangoe 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination 27/05/07

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 27, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Generally yes, but the tone could be more conservative in places, e.g. when referring to "the sensationalist press".

2. Factually accurate?: Failed. Presumably so, but it relies on large part on this website, an enthusiast-published resource and thus not a reliable source. More reliable sources should be found.

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes, as far as I can tell.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.

5. Article stability? Yes.

6. Images?: Failed. The two images used, Image:SR Leader 05.jpg and Image:Bulleid Leader.jpg, are tagged as PD by virtue of having been posted (by persons unknown) to a Usenet mailing list. This does not make a work enter into the public domain. The images date from the 1940s and are still covered by copyright. Also, no proper reference is made to the author or rights holder, or to the venue of publication.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Sandstein 09:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:SR Leader class/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

References/Citations need to be attributed to the text in general, flow of paragraphs could be improved, and secondary paragraphs brought in to break down the article into more manageable pieces, an example being a new section entitled 'Operational Details' in order to place the problems experienced by the fireman.--Bulleid Pacific 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 01:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 15:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)