Talk:Medway Branch/GA1

GA Review

Passed. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Golden (talk · contribs) 20:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 20:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

It from North Wrentham - Are we missing a word here?
- Done
now Norfolk - Is "North Wrentham" the old name of Norfolk or is it a settlement that was absorbed by Norfolk? If it's the latter, I suggest amending to "now part of"
- The former. I've adjusted a later sentence to clarify, and also expanded Norfolk, Massachusetts#History because the former name wasn't mentioned there.
The 3.6-mile (5.8 km) line - This is our first time seeing this number. Is this referring to the Medway Branch? If so, it'd be a good idea to clarify the length of Medway Branch earlier in the lead.
- There's not a good place to put it earlier, so I've edited the sentence for calrity.

Route

From North Wrentham station - Can we get a brief description of the location of this station in relation to the Medway Branch?
- I've not sure what to add - to my mind, this paragraph clearly places the station at the end of the branch, as does the route diagram in the infobox. What else would you recommend?

History

Factory Village (Medway Village) - Can we get "now", "part of" or anything similar here before "Medway Village"?
- Done
I'm not sure what the purpose of bolding "Medway Branch Railroad" here is. Could you explain it?
- Done - moved bolding to the lede where it should be.
was just the seventh rail line - "Just" doesn't seem necessary here.
- The earliness of the abandonment is arguably the most noteworthy thing about this obscure little line - that source lists over 400 abandonents in New England, few of which occurred prior to 1900. I'm open if you have suggestions for different wording.

References

Spotchecked refs #2, 5, 10, 17, 21
When I attempted to open reference #3, I received an error message. I recommend adding archive links for sources from websites.
- That's very strange - I have no issue opening it on mobile Chrome or desktop Firefox. All outlinks are saved on archive.org, so the bot will add them if they go dead.
Can we add links to the specific pages mentioned in sources like reference #10, where there are four different pages available for viewing?
- Done All sources now have relevant pages listed, and {{rp}} used when specific pages (rather than the whole page range) is being cited.

General comments

Earwig shows no copyvio
Images are relevant and free.
This is a concise yet informative article about a topic, railroads, that I previously knew nothing about. I will be happy to approve it once the concerns mentioned above are addressed. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Golden: Thanks for the detailed review! I've replied to your comments above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for the changes, Pi.1415926535. I'm ready to pass but I'll wait until BlueMoonset's point below has also been appropriately addressed. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 18:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by non-reviewer

I removed a problematic statement at the end of the History section a few days ago, which was restored with a tiny change ("purchased" became "planned to purchase") a few minutes later: The corporate entity outlasted the railroad line by over a century: in 1968, the town planned to purchase a parcel "supposedly owned by the Medway Branch Railroad" when constructing a town dump. The problem is both the claim that "The corporate entity outlasted the railroad line by over a century" and, to a lesser extent, the newly inserted word "planned": while the town may only have been able to trace the ownership to the Medway Branch Railroad and couldn't figure out anything past that (and they wouldn't need to do so if they took the property by eminent domain), just because the town can't figure out who owns the parcel after all the purchases and bankruptcies and mergers in the late 19th century and into the 20th century doesn't mean that the corporate entity still existed in 1968: to say so in Wikipedia's voice is clearly a violation of the GA criteria, and as long as this information remains, should prevent the article from being listed. You'd need to check to see whether the corporate entity is still registered as a corporation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and there's no source given for that. We don't have a good idea of the town's plans, per se: they certainly considered purchasing the parcel, but the warrant article was withdrawn before the 1968 Town Meeting, and without further information about this beyond the annual reports of 1967 and 1968, it feels sketchy. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I have further edited the sentence to remove the assumption that the corporate entity still existed and replace "planned" with "proposed". Hopefully that satisfies your objections. Given that eminent domain requires compensation to the property owner - and thus knowing who the property owner is, and that this is official legal wording from the town. I think the mere mention of the railroad as the supposed owner is worth including. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pi.1415926535, the problem is that the updated text is still making assumptions that don't prove out. In this case, "when constructing a town dump" is dubious because Norfolk already had a town dump. The problem here (see page 13 of the 1967 annual report given as the source) was explained that "part of the Town Dump" turned out to be on property not owned by Norfolk. The Warrant for the 1968 Town Meeting, Article 31 on pp. 135&136, is looking for "approximately 180,000 square feet supposedly owned by Medway Branch Railroad". However, per the 1968 report, the dump expansion was complicated by the town not owning as much land as it thought. (These two explanations a year apart don't quite jibe with each other.) Article 31 was indefinitely postponed at the 1968 town meeting, and for the 1969 Warrant, a new Article 5 was looking for "approximately 218,300 square feet owned by Grace Harvey and the heirs or devisees of Robert Murphy" (no idea whether this is a different parcel altogether or they'd done a better survey and title search in the interim); see p. 128 of the 1968 annual report. It was this parcel that the 1969 Town Meeting authorized buying for $1,500, per the 1969 annual report, p. 120. All this to say we don't know enough to say anything definitive beyond the fact that the railroad was mentioned on the Warrant for the 1968 Town Meeting, and the article was withdrawn. I imagine there were newspaper stories at the time about the town that didn't own some of its own dump... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I see. Would you be okay with The town proposed to purchase a parcel "supposedly owned by the Medway Branch Railroad" in 1968 – over a century after the line was abandoned.? That sidesteps the issue of intent entirely. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pi.1415926535, I've done a revision of the sentence that I think better reflects the information in the annual reports: I do prefer "acquire" over "purchase", since that's what the article says, with "purchase" one of a few mentioned methods. Absent further research, I thought a few words noting that the acquisition was not made is in order (with sourcing), assuming it is still worth including the original sentence (and ultimately non-event). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.