Jump to content

Talk:Norwich and Worcester Railroad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 Cielquiparle (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Trainsandotherthings (talk). Self-nominated at 16:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  • New-from-redirect, easily long enough, no policy-related issues. Hook is neat - it has that pity-the-underdog feel - and it's cited and present. QPQ is done and we're good to go here! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Norwich and Worcester Railroad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 22:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Copyvio check

[edit]

Earwig says good to go. No concerns from me either.

Files

[edit]

All images are relevant, of acceptable quality, and copyright-free:

File:West portal detail of Taft Tunnel, December 2017.JPG: CC-BY-SA 3.0;
File:1859 Norwich and Worcester Line advertisement.jpg: valid public domain rationale;
File:Plainfield station postcard.jpg: valid public domain rationale;
File:Aerial view of the US Naval Submarine Base New London c1990.jpg: valid public domain rationale;
File:Putnam station from parking lot (1), October 2020.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0;
File:Norwich station, December 2018.JPG: CC-BY-SA 3.0;
File:Gales Ferry station postcard.jpg: valid public domain rationale.

Prose

[edit]
  • "Described by contemporary press as "extremely liberal"" – does this have to be noted?
  • "but the balance of the line" – pardon my ignorance, what does "balance" mean here?
    Synonym for "remainder" [1]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two steamships" – I think we can wikilink steamship here.
    •  Done
  • "loans from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts" – just "Massachusetts" is fine.
    •  Done
  • "(The railroad was assisted by a federally-funded dredging of the Thames River channel.)" – starting and ending a new sentence with parentheses looks quite odd; are these really necessary?
    •  Done
  • "10% of the stock value; the struggling NY&NE cancelled the lease in 1884 and re-leased it at 8%." – recommend "10 percent" and "8 percent" per MOS:%.
    •  Done
  • "With southern New England's dominant railroad in control," – I would wikilink New England for the benefit of non-American readers.
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New Haven went bankrupt in 1961" – wikilink bankrupt.
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arguing that with the disaffirming of the lease it was not really part of Penn Central." – could it say something like "actually" or "technically" as opposed to "really"?
    "Actually" is fine by me, reworded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "plus a guarantee of financing from a bank to purchase the line." – ignore me if this is standard American English; could it say "as well as" instead of "plus"?
    It could say "as well as", but I wanted to avoid repeating "as" twice in the span of three words. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see!
  • "In contrast, the Norwich and Worcester had no train crews or trains" – recommend "In contrast, the Norwich and Worcester had no train crews nor trains"
    Sure, changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(By that time, the southern section was served by a weekday freight, while the northern section only had twice weekly service and was no longer used as a through route to Worcester.)" – same concern with the parenthesis as above.
    •  Done

Refs

[edit]

All sources are RS. Spotcheck—no concerns with refs 1, 11, 12, 15 or 21. But for ref 24 b:

  • I could not seem to find where it mentions the Norwich and Worcester had no train crews nor trains?
    My bad, it's ref 17 (Weicker Bolsters RR For Area) that explicitly states "Weicker said the Norwich and Worcester Railroad Co., which owns the track in question, has not actively run trains in the area for more than 100 years." Added a footnote to this source at the location in question. Ref 15 (Dodd Supports Rail Unit) also discusses this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, noted.

Formatting:

  • Some web refs have retrieval dates whilst others do not.
    • Scans of old newspapers shouldn't need accessdates, since the actual content (the printed paper) is never going to change. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, the article needs to be updated to reflect this. Refs 23–25 are scans with retrieval dates and ref 11 a digital work without a retrieval date, for instance.
  • Refs 14, 23–25 and Karr 2017 have location parameters whilst none of the other templates do.
    I use location parameters for newspapers when the location of publication isn't obvious from the title. The Day is a good example; there's also a newspaper called The Day in Ukraine. But the Boston Globe or Boston Evening Transcript doesn't need a location parameter since it's obvious it's in Boston. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see. That makes sense.

Other

[edit]

Infobox, short desc, WP:ALT text, navs, other templates and cats good.


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norwich_and_Worcester_Railroad&oldid=1208139025"