Template:Did you know nominations/Hamilton and North-Western Railway

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: rejected by — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hamilton and North-Western Railway

(

)

... that the Hamilton and North-Western Railway received bonuses for building a competing route to the Northern Railway of Canada, only to merge with them a year after starting operations?
Source: "Vuckson

5x expanded by Maury Markowitz (talk). Self-nominated at 21:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC).

Article has been recently nuked and paved to more like a 10x expansion and is free of copyvios. The language is a little bit POV with things like "To everyone's surprise" (really?) and "Flush with cash from the merger", but these should be reasonably straightforward to copyedit out. I'm not sure which source verifies the hook; the lead suggests the line was operational some months after the merger in 1879. It looks like your nomination chopped off the pertinent part of the source. Also, QPQ needs to be done. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

QPQ aside, the 3,427 bytes, expanded to 17,893 bytes appears to be just over the 5 x requirement. No apparent copyright vio but there does seem to be some unsourced content and technical content dangling. It needs a good copy edit. I am looking at the hook.Mark Miller (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This version, before Maury did the rewrite is 1255 characters of prose, requiring 6275 characters to count for a 5x expansion. I agree with your other points. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Point well taken. A character count is not the same as a byte count.Mark Miller (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, there's a problem with the hook. The issue is that the bonus was not paid out to, or received by the company for something like finishing early or jjuts building the line. Each city paid a bonus out. From the article; "Towns along the proposed routes gave up large bonuses to be selected as stops along the line.". That needs to indicate that the bonus was from cities to actually have stops not for building the line. The article does not verify the hook. I suggest changing "..for building a completed route to the..." to "..from cities along the route to the..." and possibly add: "for stops".Mark Miller (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
So, checking against all 5 criteria, the article was expanded within 7 days, was expanded at last 5x and does not seem to have appeared on the main page that I am aware of. The issue appears to be neutrality as the hook implies bonus was paid to the company or article subject simply for building the line itself, however the monies paid were done so by cities in order to get the line to stop there. As a hook, that seems far more interesting. "Did you know the Hamilton and North-Western Railway was paid a bonus from each city along the new line in order for trains to stop?" That just seems more accurate, neutral and interesting but, it's only a suggestion. I have , however, struck out the first hook as it should not be used as written.Mark Miller (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

From Vuckson, page 1 & 2:

The concept of another railway linking Toronto’s great rival, Hamilton, with Lake Simcoe and Georgian Bay in the 1870’s persuaded Simcoe County and the townships the line would pass through to give financial bonuses for the construction of the H&NW in the hope of having another option to the rates and service dictated by the Northern. As history has recorded, within a few months after the railway from Hamilton arrived in Collingwood in 1879 it merged, mainly for financial reasons, with its rival to whom it was intended to offer stiff competition. Politicians in Collingwood must have been frothing at the mouth over the nearly $38,000.00 in bonuses the Town had voted to give the H&NW which had promised from the outset that it was to be a “competing” line and would never amalgamate with another railway.

As you can see, the source directly states the line received bonuses specifically to provide competition to the Northern. The various other references all say the same thing. Every railway of that era was paid bonuses by the towns along the route, it's not really a useful hook (if one wants the hook to demonstrate something unique or interesting). That they received bonuses to build in order to provide competition and with the stipulation they would not merge, and then did so with their erstwhile competitor, is pretty much the "whole story" of this railway. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Dubuque. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Mark Miller, will you be returning to the review? The QPQ was completed a while ago. If not, please let us know and we'll call for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between specifically and implicitly. After already stating that the bonuses were for stops in these towns...specifically, it is also noting a concept of competition that helped persuade the townships to pay the bonuses. The history being recorded was that a few months after completion it merged. The author uses the words "must have" in speculation of frothing mouths. So I would say I understand that the source makes reference very closely to what you are saying but it doesn't seem precise enough for all that is being written and how. Let me get back to this after dinner.Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Basically I have been waiting for a response but I did say I was coming back. Sorry, I got wrapped up in real life. Is there a reply to the above?Mark Miller (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see a question in there, what are you asking? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't ask a question. I stand by the review. There seems to be nothing left to discuss.Mark Miller (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

With no hook I do not see I reason for this to proceed further. There has not been enough effort made here to get this approved. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)