Talk:Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad

Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad 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.
Review: January 26, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 November 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad never actually reached Boston or Barre?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad.

Wikipedia

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

United States: Massachusetts Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Massachusetts portal This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad never actually reached Boston or Barre? Source: Ronald Dale Karr, The Rail Lines of Southern New England, 2nd edition. p. 230. "in 1869, the destination of the railroad shifted northward toward Gardner and Winchendon; the line never did get to Barre."
- ALT1: ... that the Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad was founded in 1847, but did not start construction until 22 years later, in 1869? Source: Ronald Dale Karr, The Rail Lines of Southern New England, 2nd edition. p. 230. "In 1847 the Barre & Worcester Railroad was chartered... Renamed the Boston, Barre and Gardner in 1849, it remained a railroad in name only for the next two decades."

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Bell (publisher)

5x expanded by Trainsandotherthings (talk). Self-nominated at 17:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Article was recently expanded and generally well-referenced. Both hooks are interesting, but the original one is my pick. I will AGF on the hook that I have no access to. Copyvio not detected by Earwig (though admittedly, might be due to sources being not open access). QPQ is done. Good to go - the orange tag at the top seems to be a "standard" thing for train lines, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. Would certainly help to have it, but it can work without. Juxlos (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0 to T:DYK/P4

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 02:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article within the week. eviolite (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Sorry for the wait!!! Comments can be found below.

Sourcing etc

Sources look fine
Images, copyvio etc appear fine from spotchecks

Lead/general

I don't really like the phrasing of the lead sentence. Maybe change ", which" to "that" without the comma. Some people may also complain that you do not mention anywhere that it is in the USA (though to me it's not a big deal).
I've rewritten much of the lead now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"of Winchendon" -> "at"? Not sure about this one.
I don't think there's anything wrong with this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link Gardner, Massachusetts
Y Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link Holden, Massachusetts in the infobox
Y Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead generally uses a lot of short, disconnected sentences - it may read better if you combined them, though then you'd have to be careful with making them too unwieldy. Not really sure about this one.
That's an artifact of how I started the article, I've rewritten the lead section now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dates of operation say 1871-1885 but you mention how it's still being operated - maybe could use some clarification (like "1871-1885 (independently), 1885-present (by other companies)"?) Unsure, but I do think it would help to clear up questions regarding the scope (physical railway or the company.)
General convention for articles on railroad companies is that the dates of operation reflect the company itself, unless the article is specifically about a railroad line (like Fitchburg Line, which is distinct from Fitchburg Railroad). In general, the railroad companies I write about do not justify separate articles for the original builder and operator, and the infrastructure itself, although exceptions exist (see New Haven–Springfield Line). The scope of this article is both the company and its former lines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Body

Need to note in body that it was originally called the Barre and Worcester Railroad, else "the company changed its name" lacks context
Y This has been done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like these anthropomorphizations of the railroad in e.g. "the railroad [...] began plans", "the railroad also decided", etc - the railroad isn't deciding anything, it's the company (or the directors of the company) in charge of the railroad. I don't think it's a big deal since it's still understandable but I think it can be worded better.
I don't think it's a big deal either, but I've changed some wording accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"which extended" - "extending" for clarity?
Y Sure, wording changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peterborough/Peterboro, be consistent
Y The source I used here gave the name as Peterboro, but when I looked closer, it's actually "Peterboro'" which means the end of the name was cut off (presumably in the interest of saving page space). All mentions are now using the Peterborough spelling. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two very short (1-2 sentence) paragraphs.
Y Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see where it says two injuries - it seems to mention at least three crew members who were seriously injured in some fashion.
The source says one killed, two fatally injured, and two slightly injured. That's how I arrived at the numbers in the article. Reading the source again, it does say only that the two fatally injured people would "likely die" but does not make it certain. I've modified the article accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the comma before the quote.
Y Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
consider linking Fitchburg Railroad as first mention in body
Y Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"ending its existence" - clarify "its"
Y Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note the abbreviation of Boston and Maine as B&M
Y Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"1 mile long" is an adjective so should be hyphenated. {{convert}}'s documentation includes this example: {{convert|10|ft|m|adj=mid|-long}} → 10-foot-long (3.0 m)
I've rewritten this sentence per the comment immediately below, which makes this moot. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"leaving only a 1 mile..." - should probably clarify that the railroad also operated the section from Worcester to Gardner?
Y Yes, I've rewritten this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"excepting only the stub track in Gardner" - this sounds like the exact same thing covered in the last paragraph, please clarify (was this the Worcester-Gardner section abandoned? doesn't sound like it)
The timeline is as follows: Line north of Haywood abandoned by B&M in 1959, line south of Gardner abandoned by B&M in 1972, line south of Gardner purchased and reopened by P&W in 1974. The edit I just made should clarify this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note abbreviation of Providence and Worcester as P&W (and possibly also note their acquisition by Genesee and Wyoming - was a bit confusing when reviewing that source at first)
Y Abbreviation and G&W ownership both noted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should clarify the station listing is from 1917 as that was after the railroad was purchased and changed hands.
Y Noted in the section heading. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatted the table a bit - hope this is okay.
Looks good to me, thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Is there anywhere that the "never served Boston or Barre" thing is directly cited in? I see in the DYKN you mentioned a source that would reference the Barre part of that which should be added to the body. Similarly, is there any reason you can find that the railroad was called that (esp the Boston bit)?
Many early railroads in southern New England appended "Boston" to their names, irrespective of whether they actually reached Boston (e.x. Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad). It was the place where the first railroads in the region emanated from, and was and is the largest city in New England. It's similar to how an absurd number of railroad companies in the Midwest added "Pacific" to the end of their names, but never reached the Pacific Ocean (e.x. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad). Barre was originally planned to be on the company's route, which is why it was in the name. The Karr book directly states the railroad never reached Barre, and the company never had any plans to directly serve Boston either (the original route went the opposite direction of Boston!). I've added a sentence reflecting this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: On hold pending notes above, thanks. eviolite (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Thanks for the edits. I've made a minor copyedit (changing one word and adding one) and am now happy to promote this as a GA. Great work! eviolite (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]