Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Providence and Worcester Railroad/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 January 2023 [1].

Providence and Worcester Railroad[edit]

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Providence and Worcester Railroad was formed in 1844 to connect its namesake cities. This was accomplished in 1847, and it continued running trains until it was leased by the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad in 1889, which was itself leased by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad (The New Haven) in 1892. For most companies, that would be the end of the story, and the holder of the lease would inevitably buy out the company being leased. But the P&W was different. Thanks to some peculiar rules in its original 1844 charter protecting the interests of smaller shareholders, the New Haven couldn't get hold of enough shares to merge the company. It continued to exist for 85 years under lease, and the New Haven tolerated having to pay the P&W shareholders dividends, until the New Haven (which went bankrupt in 1961 and never recovered) was merged into Penn Central in 1969.

Penn Central did not want the P&W, but the Interstate Commerce Commission felt otherwise and ordered its inclusion in the merger, in spite of PC threatening to abandon the P&W's tracks. Penn Central would suffer the share rules no longer and demanded they be rewritten so it could take control and absorb the P&W. Instead, P&W's shareholders voted to terminate the lease entirely and take over their own railroad again. To PC's shock, the ICC agreed, and P&W was made independent on February 3, 1973. Starting with roughly 55 miles of tracks, P&W rapidly grew into a major railroad by buying lines from other, larger companies that couldn't operate them profitably, and doing just that (making a profit). It also purchased several shortline railroads outright. Today, P&W owns or has operating rights on 612 miles of tracks in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York. It was purchased by shortline holding company Genesee & Wyoming in 2016, but continues as before with few changes (apart from G&W orange slowly replacing P&W's brown and red on its locomotives). P&W has shown it's possible to run freight rail profitably in New England, despite the departure of much of the region's former industry which doomed so many other railroads. P&W is set to continue to succeed where many others have failed for the foreseeable future.

I made P&W a good article in late 2021, and a year later, after extensive work (and moving to Rhode Island myself) I think it's ready for FAC. P&W is now my hometown railroad, so I feel a special affinity for it and would love to see it become a featured article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the 1847 map
    I've tried my hand at this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, but this should be done using |upright= rather than fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't follow. Where is the documentation for this? (Or you could just make the change yourself since I'm not understanding what you mean). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See MOS:UPRIGHT. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why it matters, but done regardless. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Providence_and_Worcester_Railroad_logo.svg: FUR needs completing
    Filled out with the standard rationales for logos. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Source link is dead, and who is believed to be the copyright holder? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Source link was messed up by a visual editor bug. Fixed now. Copyright holder information added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Providence_and_Worcester_RR_1909.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
    Stock/bank notes like that don't really give any information on a specific person who created them. We generally assume they are public domain given sufficient age (over 100 years for this one). I checked the uploader on Commons [2], and he is a German speaker and I'm unsure he speaks English. User:Pi.1415926535, do you mind weighing in here? I know you're familiar with copyright on things like this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've corrected the copyright tag to PD-US-expired. Issuance of a stock certificate should constitute publication. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:L._Wright_-_Train_wreck_on_the_Providence_Worcester_Railroad_near_Pawtucket,_Rhode_Island_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    This was published in a Rhode Island newspaper contemporaneously (1853, see source here), the copyright expired a long time ago (before any of us were even born). My recently acquired copy of Railroads of Rhode Island: Shaping the Ocean State's Railways, by Frank Heppner, confirms this and also states this photo was the first ever photo of a train collision published in a newspaper. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Railway_and_locomotive_engineering_-_a_practical_journal_of_railway_motive_power_and_rolling_stock_(1901)_(14738062926).jpg: is a more specific tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that's one of Fae's mass uploads. It is PD-US-expired as it was originally published in the U.S. in 1901, I have added that tag to the image on Commons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the image - the source indicates that it was from the Pittsburgh and Western, not the Providence and Worcester. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: does this pass the image review now? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John M Wolfson[edit]

  • Leads generally should not exceed four paragraphs in length.
    Lead is now four paragraphs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • against expectations, [the ICC let the P&W go] is not supported by the body.
    In the words of Hartley, "Eder suggested P&W might resume independent operation. Remember that this was at a time when large rail mergers were occurring with regularity. Spinoffs were uncommon, and the idea of a resurrected P&W seemed quite ridiculous". I've added this quote to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unusual shareholding rules are mentioned frequently but never elaborated to the best of my knowledge.
    It was specifically about special rules that protected the interests of minority shareholders. Even if you had a majority of shares, your ability to control the company was heavily restricted. Will specify that tomorrow (and get to the rest of these). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, basically the 1844 charter of the company was written with a voting clause that protected the rights of smaller shareholders against larger ones. Penn Central had 28% of the company's shares, but this clause translated that into just 3% voting power. The rest of the company's shareholders didn't get onboard with PC's plans, and instead agreed to cancel the lease and become independent. The New Haven, the previous lease owner, held just 91 of 35,000 shares by 1905, and an attempt to rewrite laws to let it purchase the company by only getting half of its shares was defeated by P&W shareholders [3]. This is mentioned at Two years later, the company incorporated in Delaware, while maintaining the voting rules from the company's original 1844 charter. and The same rules that left the New Haven unable to take over the P&W also frustrated the Penn Central, which found itself with only 3% voting power, despite both leasing the company and inheriting the New Haven's portion of the company's shares. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serving this customer [Arnold Lumber] requires P&W trains to travel 5 miles (8.0 km) farther southward on the Northeast Corridor than for any other customer, finding space between Amtrak trains which travel up to 150 miles per hour (240 km/h) on this particular segment Is that particularly significant/unique?
    Two different sources specifically called this fact out (Karr Hartley 2016 and Heppner) so I felt it was worthy of attention. And to be travelling 5 miles down one of the busiest rail lines in the country to serve a customer that only takes a car or two at a time is pretty unique dedication to serving every customer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest Karr 2017, Hartley 1994, Hartley 2016, and Gennesee 2016 be spun off into short-form citations with the likes of {{sfn}}; it makes them much more readable, and with specific page numbers somewhat improves verifiability.
    In progress. Will be done soon. I disagree on Gennesee 2016, it's only cited 3 times in the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Karr 2017, Hartley 1994, and Hartley 2016 have been converted to Sfn format. @John M Wolfson: what are your thoughts on my changes so far? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:John M Wolfson. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not satisfied as to how exactly the PC's 28 percent got translated to 3 percent voting power; maybe seek the original charter if not an imposition, but otherwise no biggie. The only other concern I have is that it's listed as the 1999 Regional Railroad of the Year, but this is neither mentioned in the prose nor cited. I think you can kill two birds with one stone on this one. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Railway Age awards the titles of "Short Line Railroad of the Year" and "Regional Railroad of the Year" to one railroad each every year. The P&W appears to have won this award in the regional category in 1999, but I can't find reliable sourcing for this (I'd probably have to get a copy of Railway Age from 1999), so I'll just remove it.
As for the 28 percent to 3 percent, here's the exact wording from Hartley 2016: Eder explains that PC became owner of New Haven's 28 percent of P&W stock. But voting clauses, dating back to the original charters and retained by the reincorporated P&W, gave PC just 3 percent of voting power. After several state and federal court battles, these conditions were upheld. Ultimately, the Interstate Commerce Commission agreed with an ICC examiner who recommended that the small railroad be allowed to go its own way. I'm not sure if it would be original research to go look at the charter myself and then say "this rule caused Penn Central to have very little control of the company". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a case where primary sources are acceptable and would improve the article, and I personally would do so, but if that's an imposition I'll let it slide and support this pending image/source/non-prose reviews. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Lead

  • What is a "shortline" railroad?
    A Shortline railroad is one that operates a relatively short amount of track, as opposed to a Class 1 railroad. This is mostly used in North America, so I can see why someone from elsewhere wouldn't immediately get the meaning. I've linked the term at the first use in the lead and the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A fast success" "fast" is ambiguous when talking about trains; suggest using another word (or deleting/rephrasing)
    I think you know what I meant, but I do see how "fast" could be interpreted to mean the trains ran very quickly. I changed this to "A successful railroad". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link single-track railway, double-track railway
    Both linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say "85 years" twice (once would be enough)
    Yeah, that is duplicative. I've remove the first mention. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trains of stone" Ambiguity here/ I presume you mean trains carrying stone
    Yes, unit trains of trap rock. Changed to "unit trains of crushed stone" which I think makes it clearer. 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Original Providence and Worcester Railroad

  • Could we use the inflation template?
    Implemented. Let me know if I missed anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End of independence

  • I don't see the need for the double-indenting of the "Plans for regained independence" subsection.
    Oops, that was from before I restructured part of the article, and missed that was a double indented header. Corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the source for the quote in the box?
    Hartley 1994, which I tried to specify in the bottom of the quote. Changed to a Sfn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new Providence and Worcester Railroad

  • Although we can guess what ICC stands for, better to define the acronym explicitly (same with USRA)
    Done. I did this in the lead previously but forgot about the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Penn Central was unwilling to allow this to happen" Why? If they were reluctant to acquire and only wished to shut it down
    They wanted to abandon most of the line, but keep the tracks at both ends to serve major customers that were present there. If P&W survived, they wouldn't have direct access to that traffic. PC also wanted P&W's real estate in Providence. I've added mention of both of these things to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1974, the railroad purchased" Another ambiguity; had to read to the end of the sentence to find out which railroad
    I see how this could be ambiguous; changed to "P&W". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For motive power, P&W initially operated a small fleet of 5 ALCO RS-3 locomotives and 5 cabooses" 5 -> "five" Do cabooses provide motive power?
    No, but at that time every train was required to have a caboose on the end. So to run 5 trains, you need 5 cabooses. This ended in the 1980s when the End-of-train device made them largely unnecessary (though P&W used cabooses until at least the 1990s for trains on the Northeast Corridor). Changed to "five ALCO RS-3 locomotives, plus five cabooses". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "order for 5 new" -> "order for five new "
    Changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "80 M-420s" -> "eighty M-420s"
    MOS says numbers 10 and greater can be spelled out or in numeral form. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Hawkeye is saying that two consecutive numbers in a different context can be confusing and suboptimal, so "eighty M-420s" is still better notwithstanding the MOS. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "representative"
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason not to use the acronym P&W here?
    The only reasons is a desire not to always use the same "P&W" acronym. Writing gets kind of dry if you use the exact same terminology every single instance the name comes up in the entire article (the string "P&W") comes up 86 times right now). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December 1987, the railroad's owner, Capital Properties Inc. " Wait, when did it become the owner?
    Hartley 1994 says Capital Properties was a holding company for the P&W. I'm not certain when exactly it became owner, but it appears Capital Properties owned the company from at least when it became independent in 1973. Eder was the majority shareholder of both Capital Properties and the P&W. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead it says the stone came from quarries in Queens but this is not in the body
    Huh? The stone is destined for Queens. P&W also signed an agreement to run trains of stone from Connecticut quarries to Queens over the Northeast Corridor.
  • Any prospect of obtaining a map of the current system?
    See the infobox. Much of that was me personally messing with a relation on OSM. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Supporting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Sources look good quality to me.
  • fn 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41: page number?
    Page numbers added. Hopefully I didn't miss anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 4, 43, 46, 48, 51, 60, 62, 63: inconsistent date format. Switch to mdy per the other references
    All instances of different date formats have been switched. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 9, 43, 56: CS1 error. Remove the url-status parameter
    Parameter removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 14: consider moving into the references with the other books. Do not use abbreviation SC - spell out the name in full like in the References. (MOS:POSTABBR)
    Abbreviation spelled out. I am uncertain if adding to references is worthwhile. I am also away from home right now. I will decide tomorrow when I get back home. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 16, 20, 21 : p. should be pp.
    Corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41: Include the name of the city of publication where it is not included in name of the newspaper
    City name added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 43: WJAR should not be italic
    Disagree. I converted this from cite website to cite news, and the italics were still present per the template. Why would italics be wrong here, since WJAR is the source of the news? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the publisher. If you used the publisher card instead of the work one, it would not be italic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 46, 51: Publisher?
    The publisher of both is G&W; I've added G&W's name to both. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put the References into alphabetical order of author
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I intend to leave some comments here within the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • "The New Haven tolerated making lease payments for 76 years, until that company was merged into Penn Central (PC) at the end of 1968." - Optionally, you could clarify that the NH was the company that was merged into PC. Also, would it be easier to say "The NH leased the P&W for 76 years"?
  • "P&W also signed an agreement to run unit trains of crushed stone from Connecticut quarries to Queens" - Even though we both know where Queens is, I would say "to Queens, New York", for clarity.
  • "P&W owns or has operating rights over 612 miles (985 km) of trackage in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York." - Could this be mentioned earlier in the lead? The ownership/trackage rights are already mentioned in the first sentence of the first paragraph.
  • " P&W freight trains coexist with" - For some reason, I feel like "coexist" may not be the right word. Maybe "operate alongside"?
Original Providence and Worcester Railroad:
  • "Railroads were taking hold across New England by the 1840s" - To me, "taking hold" sounds a bit colloquial.
  • "Despite fears the company would fail, it announced on October 8, 1845, that thanks to a $100,000 (2.91 million in 2021) investment by Jacob Little, the requisite $1,000,000 in funding had been reached, plus a further $100,000 for the Massachusetts section of the line" - I'm confused as to what this sentence implies. It can mean one of three things:
    1. Little provided funding only for the Massachusetts section of the line, in which case only $900,000 would have been raised.
    2. Little provided $100,000 for the completion of the railroad, and Little also gave an additional $100,000 for the Massachusetts section, bringing the investment to $1 million.
    3. Little provided $100,000 for the completion of the railroad, and someone else gave $100,000 for the Massachusetts section, bringing the investment to $1 million.
  • The source says The committee for soliciting subscriptions to the Providence and Worcester Railroad met at the Town House yesterday, and reported that the whole stock, $1,000,000, had been subscribed under the Rhode Island charter. In addition to this, about $100,000 have been subscribed under the Massachusetts charter, making in all $1,100,000, being $100,000 above the estimates. Jacob Little & Co., of New York, subscribed $100,000." How do you interpret that? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. In that case, can we clarify that the $100,000 for MA was in addition to the $1 million that the railroad had after Little's donation? – Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten as Despite fears the company would fail, it announced on October 8, 1845, that thanks to additional funding, including a $100,000 (2.91 million in 2021) investment by Jacob Little, the requisite $1,000,000 had been reached, plus a further $100,000 for the Massachusetts section of the line, and that construction would begin immediately. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no government assistance or loans were involved" - This also seems redundant, given that you just mentioned that the railroad was entirely privately funded.
  • I don't interpret the text as saying that. Jacob Little did invest $100,000, but there is no discussion of where the remainder of the funding came from. The company had $800,000 of funding as mentioned just before this, but I don't see anywhere else that states all the funding was private. Towns and states sometimes funded railroads, especially when they wanted their lines to serve certain areas. The Connecticut Central Railroad (1871) and the Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad are two examples. Given this, I felt it was worthwhile to specify funding was entirely from private sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant to say that the article currently states: "The funding was obtained entirely from private sources; no government assistance or loans were involved". If towns and states funded railroads, then some people may consider that "government" funding. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. Silly me. Yeah, that's a valid point. I've removed the redundancy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction was more expensive than anticipated" - I'd say "Construction had been more expensive", as you're talking about a conditional statement here.
  • "The takeover was defeated by the company's president and clerk refusing to allow a vote to approve the new directors to be recognized" - I suggest rephrasing this in active voice, e.g. "The company's president and clerk defeated the takeover, refusing to allow a vote to approve the new directors to be recognized".
  • "when it began to be used to import coal from ships" - Instead of "began to be used", I'd say "was used", since you just mentioned that the branch had recently opened.
  • I gave the source here another read, and then rewrote to "The branch opened the same year, and provided an alternate routing for coal imports that avoided the use of horses through downtown Providence." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
End of independence:
  • "$897,500–a peculiar holding" - Minor issue, but this should probably be either an emdash or a spaced endash per MOS:DASH, even if the source uses an unspaced endash.
  • "In 1892, control of the P&W passed to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, when it took over the New York, Providence and Boston" - I think this could be rephrased more directly: "In 1892, New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad gained control of the P&W when it took over the New York, Providence and Boston."
  • Changed to "In 1892, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad gained control of the P&W when it leased the New York, Providence and Boston."
  • "The New Haven was to be the operator of the P&W for the next 77 years." - The conditional "to be" should only be used if the NH decided on the 77-year term back in 1892. If not, the conditional should be removed, e.g. "The New Haven operated the P&W for the next 77 years", as you're not using the conditional statement to describe something that (at the time) was proposed to happen.
  • The idea here was to convey that this would be the situation for the next 77 years, based on our knowledge now in 2022, not that the lease term was for 77 years (it was a 99 year lease, actually). Changed to "The New Haven operated the P&W for the next 77 years." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New Haven only owned a very small number of shares – only 91 out of 35,000" - The word "only" is repeated in close succession here.
  • "Both freight and passenger train traffic was initially strong" - "Was" should be "were", since the sentence is essentially parsed as "both... were strong".
  • "15 passenger trains traveled the line each day" - The start of the sentence should be spelled out as "Fifteen" per MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • "after experimenting with four local trains each way in 1953, the schedule was cut back to the previous one per day in 1954, before this one round trip was also discontinued by 1957" - The sentence contains a dangling modifier, since "the schedule was cut back" is a modifier for the clause "after experimenting with four local trains each way in 1953". It was the P&W, not the schedule, that experimented with four trains. Also, I suggest using another conjunction instead of "before", as it's potentially confusing when you're describing something that happened after 1954.
  • Rewritten as "Passenger train service on the line was cut back during the 1950s as well; after experimenting with four local trains each way in 1953, the New Haven cut the schedule back to one local round trip per day in 1954; this round trip was also discontinued by 1957." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The State of Maine Express ended operations in 1960" - This duplink should be removed, as the State of Maine Express is already linked earlier in the same paragraph.
  • "with the last one ending in 1966 with Eder as the Providence and Worcester's new president" - The word "with" is also repeated in close succession, and the first use of the word is as a conjunction. I suggest making this its own clause: "The group launched three proxy fights to take control; the last one ended in 1966 with Eder as the Providence and Worcester's new president."
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this. I'll finish up this review soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: No pressure but this FAC kind of hinges upon your review... Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new Providence and Worcester Railroad:
  • "The New Haven had managed to purchase a number of the P&W's shares in the three quarters of a century it had held the lease" - Should this just be "The New Haven had purchased a number.."
  • "Penn Central was unwilling to allow this to happen, as it wanted both to continue serving large customers near Providence and Worcester and access to the P&W's real estate holdings in Providence, leading to a series of court battles" - Not an issue with the article per se, but it's a weird situation. PC didn't want to lease P&W, but it did want P&W's business?
  • Penn Central didn't want to have to continue making lease payments, on top of being responsible for operating and maintaining the P&W tracks. But they still wanted major customers near and in Providence and Worcester, and P&W's significant real estate holdings in Providence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, that makes sense. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1 mile (1.6 km) branch" - This should be hyphenated, i.e. "1-mile (1.6 km) branch", by adding |adj=on to {{convert}}.
  • "The USRA decided to include only the portion between Groton and Plainfield in Conrail," - Should this be "The USRA decided to give only the portion..."? (I was wondering because you'd include the line in the Conrail network, or you'd give the line to Conrail.)
  • The USRA was in charge of deciding what lines were to be assigned to Conrail, and what lines weren't. I'm not sure I see the difference between "include" and "give", as I feel both convey the same meaning. The line between Groton and Plainfield was included in Conrail; you could also say it was given to Conrail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that Conrail as a company and Conrail as a network of routes might be slightly different. You're including the route in Conrail's network, but the network was operated by Conrail. However, this is not a big issue. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then-representative Chris Dodd" - The two links should probably be spaced further apart to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE situation. Also, should this be "U.S. representative" instead? E.g. "then-U.S. representative Chris Dodd"
  • This is a bit awkward, as I've been told to link representative in other comments here. I'm not sure to what extent SEAOFBLUE can be avoided here. Open to suggestions, but I can't immediately find a way to avoid two links being next to each other here. I have changed the wording to "then-U.S. Representative Chris Dodd". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One option is "winning the support of Connecticut business groups; unions; and Chris Dodd, who at the time was a U.S. Representative." However, this option requires semicolons.
    Another is "winning the support of Connecticut business groups and unions, as well as the endorsement of Chris Dodd, who at the time was a U.S. Representative." However, this option lengthens the sentence. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded as "winning the support of Connecticut business groups, unions, and Chris Dodd, at the time a U.S. Representative." I don't love it, and would prefer to keep the original wording and delink representative or link it elsewhere, but I suppose compromise is needed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Providence and Worcester stated its objections to allowing Guilford" - I'd say "objected" instead of "stating its objections".
  • "In December 1987, the railroad's owner, Capital Properties Inc. of Providence" - When did Capital Properties acquire the P&W? I assume it was sometime after PC was forced to divest the P&W. Also, because this is a single-sentence paragraph, I'd either merge this with the previous paragraph or add some details.
  • The sources are unclear about when exactly the holding company came about; it was formed by Eder. Capital Properties still exists as the owner of a bunch of former railroad land the P&W spun off for redevelopment. Penn Central didn't divest P&W, because it never held a majority of its stock, it was just the holder of the P&W lease. As a minority shareholder, and with its control further reduced by clauses in the original 1844 charter, it was powerless to stop a majority of shareholders from voting to terminate the lease. The way the charter works is covered a bit more in another book I have; I will add a few sentences about it to the article. Uncertain what to do with the Capital Properties stuff. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fresh Pond Junction yard in Queens" - Similarly to the lead, I'd clarify here that Queens is in NY.
  • "Further expansion came in 1998, when the Providence and Worcester bought the Connecticut Central Railroad, a shortline railroad based in Middletown, Connecticut" - This is another single-sentence paragraph that should be merged or expanded. Same thing applies to "P&W sold its former headquarters at 75 Hammond Street in Worcester in October 2022, relocating to 381 Southbridge Street, also in Worcester."
Operations:
  • "As of 2016, P&W served a total of 140 distinct customers on its lines, with a workforce of 138 employees" - Is "a total of" necessary, or can it be removed ("As of 2016, P&W served 140 distinct customers on its lines")? Also, does the 138 employees refer to P&W or the customers?
  • 138 employees is referring to P&W; it would be impossible for 140 customers to only have a combined total of 138 employees. I have removed "a total of" since I see no compelling reason it needs to be there. I've also changed the wording to "As of 2016, P&W served 140 distinct customers on its lines, and had a workforce of 138 employees." which I believe removes any ambiguity. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other local freights based here provide freight service for rail-based shippers on Metro-North Railroad's Danbury Branch, and the Waterbury Branch from Derby southward." - Are P&W trains with freight rights on the NEC also based from Cedar Hill Yard?
  • Sort of. P&W operates local freight service on the two Metro-North branches, and these trains are based out of New Haven, at Cedar Hill and on the Belle Dock branch line. The rights to Danbury are also used for traprock trains that serve Tilcon Connecticut's stone plant there. The Housatonic allows P&W trackage rights over the Maybrook Line to serve this facility, as it's not in direct competition with HRRC's trains (the traprock comes from southern/eastern Connecticut primarily, outside of HRRC's network). The traprock trains that go to Fresh Pond Junction I believe are based in Cedar Hill, some of them receive loaded cars from the Branford Steam Railroad in Branford, Connecticut, just east of New Haven. However, there's also other traprock trains that originate in Plainfield, Connecticut and serve a non-Tilcon quarry on the Norwich and Worcester line and are presumably based there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, that makes sense. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "P&W operates on but does not own the following" - Would it be relevant to mention which company owns each line?
  • Mentions added. CT's state rail plan claims part of the Belle Dock branch is publicly owned, but doesn't say who exactly owns it; at least part is directly owned by P&W, and Hartley 1994 identifies the entire branch as P&W owned, so for the moment I've moved it under the P&W owned and operated category. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The train, themed on the movie The Polar Express, train departs from Woonsocket station" - The Polar Express should be italicized, and "train" is repeated here for some reason.
Real estate:
  • "freight or passenger stations also exist in Manville, Rhode Island, Uxbridge, Massachusetts, (Uxbridge station) and Whitinsville, Massachusetts" - The different cities should be separated using semicolons, since the items in the list themselves have commas. Also, the comma after "Uxbridge, Massachusetts" should go after the parenthetical. E.g. "freight or passenger stations also exist in Manville, Rhode Island; Uxbridge, Massachusetts (Uxbridge station); and Whitinsville, Massachusetts".
@Trainsandotherthings sorry about this. These are all the remaining issues I have found. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Epicgenius, I've replied to everything. There's a few points that need your input. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everything looks good to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Richard Nevell[edit]

  • The article should mention what happened to the canal.
    The article states that the P&W bought the canal. I'm realizing I never explicitly state that the canal was closed; it shut down in 1848 once the railroad opened and made it obsolete. I've added a sentence with a source from the National Park Service that states this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the company responsible for any station buildings and are these now heritage assets?
    The company had a number of stations; most are long gone. The article gives some attention to Woonsocket station, which is preserved, and briefly mentions other preserved stations in Manville, Rhode Island, Uxbridge, Massachusetts, and Whitinsville, Massachusetts. The first Providence Union Station was built by the P&W and shared with the Boston and Providence, but it burnt down in 1896; the replacement building was opened in 1898 by the New Haven. I can see about adding a bit more to the real estate section about this (that section also needs a bit about how the newly-independent P&W transferred much of its Providence real estate to Amtrak and sold other portions to a development company). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Uxbridge station is on the National Register of Historic Places; inexplicably, it seems Woonsocket station is not. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Stuff like the Providence Union Station burning down may be worth including since presumably that would have had an impact on the running of the company. The ultimate abandonment or demolition of other stations would be an interesting way of illustrating the changing fortunes or priorities of the company through material culture. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a sentence about Providence Union Station. The destruction of the station happened after the P&W was leased, so the company was no longer involved with day-to-day operations of its railroad, and the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad was the company that built the replacement station. Commentary on all of the stations is too much detail for this article, which has to cover nearly 200 years worth of history, and sources may not even exist for many of the stations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have there been any archaeological investigations associated with the railway (including building surveys)?
    Not to my knowledge. A quick google search does not find anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh well, that's a shame. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nevell (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • What was the impact (or lack) of the American Civil War on the railroad? This article has a bit of information that could enhance the page on the P&W railroad. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While the instance you linked is paywalled, I found the pdf on JSTOR. It only briefly mentioned the P&W, but I added a sentence to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following source provides some additional context for the early phase of the railroad, including the involvement of the city council and proposals to use the Cove Basin: Greenwood, Richard (1998). "A Mechanic in the Garden: Landscape Design in Industrial Rhode Island". IA. The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archeology. 24 (1): 9–18. ISSN 0160-1040.. Richard Nevell (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at this source last night, though I didn't have the time to edit the article. While this is more of a topic for the article on the old union station, I will add a sentence or two about this to the article at some point today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you here Richard. Does that satisfactorily address your comments and do you have anything further? Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is generally in good shape, and I hope to information from the IA article mentioned above added to the article. There are, however, a few topics where I think more information could be added:
  • What information do we have about the workers who built the railroad? How many were there, where were they from, was there any workers' housing? At the moment construction is largely discussed in terms of money and start and end dates.
  • What was the social impact of the railroad? Did it lead to economic investment in the area or any social changes? Did it lead to new people coming to the area for work, or changes in who lived where?
  • What is the environmental impact of the railroad?

If those can be addressed, I'd be happy to support. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a lot of duplinks, could you sort them out?
Could you add the OCLCs for Hartley 1994 (30498667) and 2016 (945631712). And check to ensure that other available identifiers are not missing.
There are several p/pp errors. Eg cites 33, 55, 66; there are others.
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look at the sourcing and see if I can find information on these points, but I can't promise that it exists (especially the workers and environmental impact parts, I haven't seen much of anything about that in my previous research, but again I will take a look in google books and newspapers.com and see what I can dig up). In the 1800s, there wasn't much consideration given to environmental impacts of things like railroads and industries. I'm going to do the best I can to meet your comments, but cannot promise I will address them all to your satisfaction; it depends on what sourcing is available. My book and magazine sources, which are doing the heavy lifting for sourcing in much of the article at present, do not really discuss any of these topics you're interested in; but I haven't fully read through Heppner yet (only got that book recently) so that may change. Gog, I've also seen your comments and will go through and address them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was totally striking out until I found the Environmental Impact Statement for the Freight Rail Improvement Project (which added a 3rd track to parts of the Northeast Corridor in Rhode Island); buried in the appendices is some discussion of the history of the P&W and its impact on the region (including a mention that many of the construction workers were immigrants, especially from Ireland). I've added a bit from this source to the article. I've also removed all duplinks, fixed p/pp errors, and added OCLC numbers to the Hartley references. The only other book/magazine I really cite is the Heppner book, which already has an OCLC listed; I don't think there's anything else that would have one (nor am I really aware of why it being listed is important). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to look a bit more today. This isn't really FAC related, but I have started a sandbox page where I eventually plan to put together a History of the Providence and Worcester Railroad article; things that I can only dedicate a sentence or two to in the P&W article could be expanded upon here, and you're more than welcome to drop any sources you find there. From what I've seen in looking for sources so far, environmental impact is likely a non-starter as far as sourcing, but I may be able to pull together a bit more about the economic and social aspects. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent more time searching for sources, I can't say I've found anything more. If you know of something I'm missing, I'd be glad to hear about it, but based on my researching I think I've adequately reported what reliable sources have to say on these areas (in some aspects, that's little or even nothing). I will also note that this articles covers 200 years of history, and it is important not to overly emphasize the earliest parts. As I said before, I intend to do a separate article on the history of the company that will go into greater detail. I've spent months working on this article, and I'm quite confident at this point it meets all the FAC criteria (though I clearly missed the duplinks until Gog mentioned it, my error there). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Richard Nevell: could you both let me know your thoughts at this point? Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The remaining gaps are not trivial. We are of course bound by what the sources cover, but it would be surprising for there not to be any information on the impact of the railroad and some information on who was involved. I would expect the impact would not have been only at the start of the railroad's history, but throughout; did the railroad's changing fortunes have an impact on the region?
With the environmental impact, it may be worth looking more recent.
This is not an area I am familiar with, so I don't have leads beyond what can be Googled. Perhaps The New England Journal of History contains something, but I can't find an index online. A review of Edward Lewis' The Blackstone Valley Line: The Story of the Blackstone Canal Co. and the Providence & Worcester Railroad (1973) sounds relevant. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could get the book in question, but it likely wouldn't arrive before New Year's Day. I am trying to find sources for what you're requesting, but with all due respect I believe you are putting an undue focus on the company's early history. Again, this article is covering 200 years, and it is essential not to over-emphasize any one aspect of its history more than reliable sources do. If someone says "you should use this source", that's something actionable. When I'm told "you should add these things but I don't even know if the sources exist", I have to spend hours looking all over the internet in search of something that may not exist. To be honest, it's a frustrating situation for me. Per WP:Summary style, we shouldn't be devoting lots of attention to just the construction workers. I've spent the past half an hour looking through old documents online and I will make some additions to the article today. But I have to ask that you be understanding of the fact that little or no sourcing exists for some of what you're asking, and it's therefore not possible for me to address. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three points I raised further up this thread only one specifically related to the start of the railroad's history. The effects of the railroad - social and economic - relate to the whole period of its existence. Of course, whether there is sourcing to work from is another matter.
Have indices of history journals covering the region been consulted? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your request, I've spent the past hour looking through both JSTOR and the first 10 pages of results from Google Scholar. The best I found was [4] and [5] (see page 80 on the latter). I'm really trying here, but there's limits to how long I'm going to keep looking for something I can't find. I have more than conducted a good faith search for sources to substantiate what you believe is missing. If you can identify sources that I should look at, I'll look at them, but I'm really at my limit right now as far as how much searching I'm willing to do. I have spent several hours each day over several days trying to find sources to answer your comments, and added what little I could find. There has to be a limit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found [6] the Engineering report for the surveys done prior to the line's construction. This goes into detail about the expected economic impact of the railroad and what lines of business it was expected to engage in, but of course was written before the line was built so I don't think it meets your expectations of "the social and economic effects of the railroad". One other source said of the line's history up to 1890 that it was an uninterrupted record of prosperity. In spite of my comments last night, I have looked even further, and found essentially nothing that meets what you're looking for. I found some stuff on the company's financial performance and the line's relation to connecting railroads built later, but as for "economic and social impact" it's nearly nothing, let alone the people who built the line. You have to give up on the latter unless you can find sources that I've somehow missed. I really don't know what more you expect me to do at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heppner's Railroads of Rhode Island states, "Construction of the Providence and Worcester Railroad began in 1847 and was both swift and relatively uneventful." Along with my total lack of any findings online as far as the workers who built the railroad, I am convinced the sourcing you seek does not exist and won't be pursing this area further. I'm finding a bit about economic impact which as I said above I will be adding. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WP:FAC coordinators: How should we move forward with this nomination? I have ordered a copy of The Blackstone Valley Line: The Story of the Blackstone Canal Co. and the Providence & Worcester Railroad, which should arrive around New Year's Day. Richard has not edited in five days, and until/unless he returns we can't continue here. Forgive me for getting impatient, but it's been over two months now and I'd like to see this promoted sooner rather than later. If you want to wait until I get the book and have a chance to review it, fine, but I'd appreciate one of you letting me know how this nomination stands at the moment. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate the input of my fellow coordinators, but my first thoughts are that there does not seem to be a consensus for promotion, that it is not unreasonable for an editor not to prioritise Wikipedia for a day or two either side of Christmas and that not having consulted The Blackstone Valley Line: The Story of the Blackstone Canal Co. and the Providence & Worcester Railroad arguably means that the article does not meet FAC criterion 1 c "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature ..." although Richard has not been crass enough to actually say this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without being familiar with the nature of the Blackstone Valley Line work, I don't feel comfortable speaking either way on criterion 1c, but this is an issue that will need to be resolved one way or the other before this can be promoted. Hog Farm Talk 16:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that is a fair assessment to make, as we do not know if there are significant missing details in the book or not. I am fine with putting this on pause until I get the book and review the information within. I just wanted to get some input from the coordinators. I have done my best to work with Richard and address his comments and concerns, all the way to spending money to order another book. I have reviewed much of the key literature around the topic, including Heppner's book which as far as I am aware is the only book about Rhode Island railroads specifically, Karr's The Rails Line of Southern New England, which is an essential for any topic in the region, and Scott A. Hartley's two in-depth profiles of the railroad for Trains Magazine in 1994 and 2016. I have also extensively cited contemporary newspapers throughout the company's ~180 year history. To dismiss all of that because I didn't get one book (published in 1973) is simply unfair. Criterion 1c says that "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", not "it includes every source to ever exist on the subject".
I was not asking anyone to promote, I simply wanted coordinator input, as it had been over a week since I'd heard from any of you. I'm not demanding that Richard or anyone else prioritize Wikipedia over real life. All I asked was for your input. I'm really sick of getting dismissiveness and hostility for trying to help move the nomination forward and improve the article. I'm probably not going to participate in FAC much anymore after this article. It feels I am expected to have a perfect article, not just a very good article that represents the best possible based on the sourcing that exists. I'm sorry that I dared ask for coordinator input two months after I originally nominated the article. I have tried my best to be patient and done my best to work with everyone and address all issues. I will continue to do so for as long as this nomination is active. This whole process has become very frustrating for me, as it seems no matter what I do, more roadblocks are put up. I'd love to have a bit more information on the aspects Richard is asking about, but the coverage simply may not exist. I will read through the book when it arrives and we will see if it changes things or not. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I think I may have misunderstood the purpose of your ping (and was out of the loop for several days with Christmas-related stuff). At least for me, I see the status of this nomination as pending knowing if there's anything in that book that would materially relate to potential article content, so it can't really move forward until this gets resolved. Since we don't really know if that book has anything useful or not, it's going to be pending that item until we get things figured out one way or the other. At least from a skim of this FAC nomination, that appears to be the only major sticking point. Hog Farm Talk 17:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly perturbed by the way Gog worded his comment. I don't have any issues with you specifically. Establishing that this is on hold until I get the book is all I wanted. It may arrive as early as the 29th, but it gets here when it gets here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would you prefer me to respond? You asked "I'd appreciate one of you letting me know how this nomination stands at the moment" while commenting "I'd like to see this promoted sooner rather than later." I wanted to respond reasonably fully but also succinctly. I had no intention of upsetting a nominator who has been working hard to meet reviewer concerns and was asking a reasonable question. If you could indicate what part(s) of my response perturbed you, I imagine that I could strike and rephrase them. Or just strike them if you would feel happier without some or all of my response. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a really long reply to this, and then deleted it. I'm realizing this FAC has really gotten to me emotionally, I'm angry it's taken so long and still not on the track to promotion. I'm also frustrated that in those two months, nobody brought up me not having that book as an issue until now; otherwise, I could have ordered it long ago and already had it. All of this has combined to make me pretty frustrated at the whole process. I'm annoyed that other FACs get lots of reviewers lining up; I had to review other FACs and ask people to review mine or I would have had no reviews at all. I spent hours and hours the past week or so looking for sources for things a reviewer wanted and came back not finding sourcing for what was wanted; I've effectively been told I'm not looking hard enough, and then I'm told I need to continue the wild-goose-chase for sources for certain aspects of the company's history by ordering a book. And then what if the book doesn't have information on what people want in the article? Will I be told to go visit the National Archives in Washington D.C. and look there too? All of this has been really really stressful. FAC is stressful enough normally. I was acting irrationally today because I was upset. I need to take a break. I'll be back when I get the book, hopefully in a few days. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TaoT, sometimes FAC just sucks. I took a break myself earlier this year as I was taking things too personally so I can relate to that. If my response added to your stress, I apologise; really, that is not something I would want to do. Things seem to be ticking along. It is going to be a long one, but that happens when you get an in depth reviewer coming late to the party. I see few problems with the FAC so far. A text is on its way, let's see what that brings; no real rush right now. Importantly - chill! (In so far as you can.) Best wishes, Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks, apologies that my absence has been a source of concern, it didn't occur to me that might be an issue. In future if a review spans a holiday period I'll try to remember to leave a note. Waiting to see what the book may add sounds like a good course of action to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got home today to find the book has arrived. I have done some quick reading. First off, there is no discussion of the workers who built the line. That line of inquiry must be given up for good. I will however be able to expand upon other areas in the next few days. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing some additions from the book. I'm essentially up to the point the New Haven took over now. It's a 1973 book, so it of course only covers up to 1973. I'm trying to meet Richard's concerns, but while there's some discussion of economic impact, it's not a focus of the book at all. I'm quite familiar with scholarship on railroads like this (I've been reading nonfiction books about trains since I was a small child), and it's not often that these things are a primary focus in literature. I will be finishing up my additions from the book today and tomorrow, and beyond that I really rest my case at this point. There's no other significant literature out there that would cover the early periods of the railroad. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, ping me when you've finished adding information from the book. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nevell: Having completed a large edit tonight, I'm essentially finished with my additions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Richard ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: The additions have enriched the article, and we're back on track. I've switched to support so full steam ahead. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • A successful railroad, the P&W - We haven't actually defined this as a shortening of the title. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can rewrite the lead as "The Providence and Worcester Railroad (P&W) (reporting mark PW) is a Class II railroad...", but my concern is that the P&W would be redundant with the PW reporting mark. It's also pretty self-evident that P&W is referring to Providence and Worcester; there's nothing else mentioned in the lead it could apply to. If you don't agree about redundancy, I can add the (P&W) to the first sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and added this. We shouldn't be asking users to make logical jumps like this. I though P&W was a different company on first view. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company turned a profit operating lines bigger companies lost money on, and invested heavily in improving its infrastructure. P&W also absorbed a number of shortline railroads in Connecticut and Rhode Island. - this might be excessive detail for a lede this long. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully disagree. I think it's important to dedicate a sentence or two to profiling the activities of the newly independent company. These two sentences are covering a time period of 25-30 years, from the return to independence in 1973 to the 1998 purchase of the Connecticut Central Railroad. Doing that in two sentences is pretty good, in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • de, and the Providence and Worcester - why are we now typing this out in full?
    For variety. There's no reason not to alternate between the shortened and original forms as far as I'm aware, and in my opinion this makes for better and easier to read prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose
  • We have two maps, one says "in 1847", the other "original". Might be wise to also put the date on the second one. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworked both captions, and specified the "original" map is the full extents of the system during the first period of independence (so, before 1888). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to "fix" the redlink, but perhaps Great Salt Cave should redirect to Waterplace Park until an article is created? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've redirected Great Salt Cove to Waterplace Park, and marked it as a redirect with possibilities. That should take care of the issue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image in "passenger trains" could probably be moved up, as currently the paragraph is very small. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved up as suggested, and clear template removed as no longer necessary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have some prose in the Station listing section. Currently the table just happens with no explaination as to what the table is for. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a few sentences establishing that the tables list all stations which had passenger train service and giving end dates of service. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, I'm happy. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: are you planning to continue this review? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Lee Vilenski did add some more comments on January 6, I just haven't gotten around to them yet. Will address them today. Richard on the other hand we are still waiting to hear from. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if the above is covered, I'll be happy on the support most likely. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're obviously busy with bureaucrat duties right now, but I believe I've addressed all your concerns. Take a look when you have time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep coming back to you Lee Vilenski, but when you have a couple of minutes ... Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Providence_and_Worcester_Railroad/archive1&oldid=1133032746"