![]() | British Rail Class 47 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
I have read the article and have found problems with it, they are listed below:
If you have any questions about this, then please go to my talk page and leave a message. Senators Talk | Contribs 00:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
Why has the contents/navigation bar been 'turned off'? -- Jorvik 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
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))
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 {{self-published}} 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)
I removed the following comment made by 81.79.65.0 ( talk · contribs) from the article text:
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)
How about a section on 47's in preservation? - see class 33 page as an example
This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.
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":
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.class47.co.uk/c47_data_433.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.class47.co.uk/c47_data_437.php?G=goneWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
There's seems to be some controversy over using a photo in the infobox with a copyright notice displayed. While I can see both points of view I don't think it matters. Having said that I believe the older image of a loco in original 1960s livery should be the one used as it is the only livery the whole class carried and the infobox is a generic description. The rest of the article has a good selection of images of locos in different liveries relevant to the sections they are displayed in. Discuss. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 10:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Black Kite (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Black Kite (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
it is the only livery the whole class carried- there wasn't one. D1671 and D1734 were withdrawn when still in original two-tone green; D1953-61 were blue from new. So, two-tone green: 503 out of 512; rail blue: 510 out of 512. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 23:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
If I might make another suggestion about the table. Provide sources for every entry, or simply delete the table and replace with point information about those locomotives that can be referenced. WP:OR is a key part of Wikipedia for a reason. -- 10mmsocket ( talk) 22:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | British Rail Class 47 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
I have read the article and have found problems with it, they are listed below:
If you have any questions about this, then please go to my talk page and leave a message. Senators Talk | Contribs 00:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
Why has the contents/navigation bar been 'turned off'? -- Jorvik 21:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
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))
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 {{self-published}} 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)
I removed the following comment made by 81.79.65.0 ( talk · contribs) from the article text:
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)
How about a section on 47's in preservation? - see class 33 page as an example
This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.
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":
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.class47.co.uk/c47_data_433.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.class47.co.uk/c47_data_437.php?G=goneWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
There's seems to be some controversy over using a photo in the infobox with a copyright notice displayed. While I can see both points of view I don't think it matters. Having said that I believe the older image of a loco in original 1960s livery should be the one used as it is the only livery the whole class carried and the infobox is a generic description. The rest of the article has a good selection of images of locos in different liveries relevant to the sections they are displayed in. Discuss. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 10:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Black Kite (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Black Kite (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
it is the only livery the whole class carried- there wasn't one. D1671 and D1734 were withdrawn when still in original two-tone green; D1953-61 were blue from new. So, two-tone green: 503 out of 512; rail blue: 510 out of 512. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 23:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
If I might make another suggestion about the table. Provide sources for every entry, or simply delete the table and replace with point information about those locomotives that can be referenced. WP:OR is a key part of Wikipedia for a reason. -- 10mmsocket ( talk) 22:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)