![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Much of the information for this was obtained from Herring, P., (2000) Classic British Steam Locomotives Leicester: Abbeydale Press. The reference has been removed from the article for some reason. 18:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not one of those comic sites that infest the web. Its articles should be grounded in solid research, supported by the literature. We have already had the the New Scientist (I think) complaining about the accuracy of Wikipedia. So I have cited my sources as far as possible. I have started some new pieces without, but marked them as stubs in the hope that someone more knowledgeable will come along. As I say, there possibly should be two subsections to a page eg:
If someone was able to find more accurate information from a better book they could substitute it (unless I was quoting someone verbatim, in which copyright fair use would be involved).
Of course there is a limit to the detail in each article - some of the scientific pages are models for incomprehensibilty - but they should have a little depth, like hinting why some designs of loco were better for some applications than others, why certain courses of action were taken or persisted with. Chevin 09:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The preservation section of the page is a bit light, it only covers recent years. There was allot that went on in the 70's, 80's and 90's that could be covered briefly. I can do some but am no expert.
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Much of the information for this was obtained from Herring, P., (2000) Classic British Steam Locomotives Leicester: Abbeydale Press. The reference has been removed from the article for some reason. 18:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not one of those comic sites that infest the web. Its articles should be grounded in solid research, supported by the literature. We have already had the the New Scientist (I think) complaining about the accuracy of Wikipedia. So I have cited my sources as far as possible. I have started some new pieces without, but marked them as stubs in the hope that someone more knowledgeable will come along. As I say, there possibly should be two subsections to a page eg:
If someone was able to find more accurate information from a better book they could substitute it (unless I was quoting someone verbatim, in which copyright fair use would be involved).
Of course there is a limit to the detail in each article - some of the scientific pages are models for incomprehensibilty - but they should have a little depth, like hinting why some designs of loco were better for some applications than others, why certain courses of action were taken or persisted with. Chevin 09:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The preservation section of the page is a bit light, it only covers recent years. There was allot that went on in the 70's, 80's and 90's that could be covered briefly. I can do some but am no expert.