Template:Did you know nominations/Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad
- 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 MaterialWorks talk 22:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad
- ... that the directors of the Dutchess and Columbia Railroad stole back the railroad from a bankrupt lessee? Source: Dutchess County Railroads p.20, Hartford Courant, The Dutchess & Columbia R. R. and Its Associates p. 24
Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 07:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: All in all, I really like the hook, and the Copyvio detector says we're all clear. The only thing I'd like to see, and this is super minor, would be a citation directly following the quote "dramatic midnight train run" in the Expansion sub-section, because as of now, there is a group of citations a little later in the paragraph, and it is unclear which one this quote comes from. Other than that, I think it's good. Cheers! Johnson524 16:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Johnson524: Done! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Pi.1415926535, could you provide some additional explanation for this edit: [1] It is 100% okay and fantastic to continue improving an article after it passes GA or FA reviews, but this seems like a reversion to the pre-GA wording? Oh, and congrats on the GA/DYK, Rjjiii (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Rjjiii: The previous changes to that wording were made by the reviewer immediately before passing the GA, with no chance for me to respond. Both changes were unnecessarily wordy, and the second change was not supported by the cited sources - the reviewer made it based on personal communication with someone else off-wiki. Given that, I felt the best option was to make changes that addressed the reviewer's stated concerns while being more concise and verifiable. You can see here that my changes were not a full revert to the previous wording. Hopefully that addresses your concerns. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining and yes it does, Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)