Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SR Merchant Navy Class

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:28, 8 December 2007.

SR Merchant Navy Class[edit]

"self-nomination" I'm nominating this article for featured article because this particular class of locomotive was the prototype of the SR West Country and Battle of Britain Classes, an article that has already reached FA status. It also represents a completely new concept to steam locomotive design in Britain when the first class members were constructed in 1941. Thanks, --Bulleid Pacific 19:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent, well-written article. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support I wish to affirm my support as an editor of this article, and commend it to the Wikipedia Community's scrutiny. However, any further suggestions for improvement will be gratefully appreciated.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support.Weak object. Odd sentences are unreferenced and a few paragraphs, ex. Rebuilt locomotives were also outshopped in BR Brunswick Green, with the BR crest on the tender sides. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a contributor to this article, I would like to say thank you for highlighting a section that had not been sufficiently proof-read. The article has been examined and re-examined for technical railway terms, with a view to explaining them, but it is not always easy for a railway enthusiast to spot those that might be unfamiliar to a non-enthusiast. The section describing post-1948 livery has now been re-written. EdJogg (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've undertaken the changes as far as I can understand them, though the previous comment is not entirely explicit enough in making it easy to understand where improvement is required...--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the citation requested tags to illustrate places that I believe need inline refs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job referencing the article, I look forward to seeing it Featured.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've undertaken the changes highlighted, though one of the citations was unnecessary considering that there is a photograph of the nameplate on the right of the section that highlights what the text is saying. However, I have made this more explicit. Thank you for replying and highlighting where improvements could be made.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have noticed that user Prokonsul has not given any further feedback since his last comment above, which was nine days ago. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked him to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twice, but he still has not returned. Check his archive if you need evidence. Cheers. --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Must have missed the first time, or there were still citations missing. Glad to be back in time to support now! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for returning to the article.--Bulleid Pacific (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs work on the prose. I've copy-edited the second and third paragraphs to show the extent of rewording necessary. Tony (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.