A fact from Connecticut Valley Railroad appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 February 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
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.
... that the Connecticut Valley Railroad, which began operations in 1871, was resurrected in 1971 as the Valley Railroad, a heritage railroad? Source: Karr, Ronald Dale (2017). The Rail Lines of Southern New England : a Handbook of Railroad History (Second ed.). Pepperell, Massachusetts. pp. 111–115.
ALT1: ... that the Connecticut Valley Railroad successfully fooled the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad into purchasing it by pretending that it planned to expand northwards? Source: Karr, Ronald Dale (2017). The Rail Lines of Southern New England : a Handbook of Railroad History (Second ed.). Pepperell, Massachusetts. pp. 111–115.
Comment: I'm an hour or so past 7 days after creation, so I understand if this gets declined for that reason. But it's now or never (unless I get this to GA).
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
Interesting:
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Article was created 9 Jan (the time doesn't really matter to me), which was seven days ago. RPS is 5867 B, which is easily long enough. Both hooks are cited inline to an offline source, so I will AGF. QPQ has been done and Earwig looks good. Passing with preference towards ALT1 as I believe that is the more interesting hook. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created 9 Jan (the time doesn't really matter to me), which was seven days ago. RPS is 5867 B, which is easily long enough. Both hooks are cited inline to an offline source, so I will AGF. QPQ has been done and Earwig looks good. Passing with preference towards ALT1 as I believe that is the more interesting hook. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)