Talk:Hartford and New Haven Railroad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) at 19:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

Prose

in the state of Connecticut and — suggesting to link Connecticut
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
of New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
Comma added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The grandfather of J. P. Morgan was an original investor, laying the foundation for the long association between Morgan and the railroads of New England. — I don't understand this sentence. What is 'original investor'?
I'm not entirely sure myself, this was written from before I started improving this article. I think it refers to how J.P. Morgan was heavily involved in the H&NH's successor, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. I've gotten some flack from editors in the past for my tendency to nuke the preceding versions of my GANs in the process of improving them, so I've been trying to be less destructive (but they tend to be pretty bad and totally uncited, so I usually just rewrite everything). Honestly, this sentence can probably just go entirely, it's not important to the understanding of the topic. I don't have access to the source, either. I will remove it. If someone else wants to restore it in a better version, that's fine with me, but it doesn't seem important in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with removing it. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for the Hartford and Springfield Railroad — I don't think that has to be bold-faced
Boldface removed - how about the boldface in the branches section, should that go as well? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably yes. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
of 50 miles per hour (80 km/h). — why is km and h used as abbreviation, when miles and hour is not?
I don't see any issue with this, as long as I'm being consistent throughout the article. It's a pretty common format for unit conversions. I've addressed the instances of units where I forgot to add conversions so it should be consistent now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the alignment chosen by Alexander Twining in the 1830s, the railroad line was remarkably straight, following natural topography and the Connecticut River, and making this unique speed possible — does not follow WP:NPOV
How would you suggest rewording it? It's a true statement, and the route now sees trains as fast as 110 mph today for the same reason. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is a true statement, I don't think we should be thanking Mr. Twining in Wikipedia's voice. I suggest: "The alignment chosen by Alexander Twining in the 1830s has been widely stated to make the railroad line was ~~remarkably~~ straight, following natural topography and the Connecticut River, and making this ~~unique~~ speed possible" — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point now. I've reworded the sentence as "The railroad's largely straight alignment, which followed natural topography and the Connecticut River, made this possible." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a decision the company would later come to regret — why?
Because less than 20 years later came the Hartford Line project, and the double track had to be added back again. It was a classic example of a penny wise, pound foolish decision. I can add a mention of this in the section, but I didn't do this before as I wanted to keep things in chronological order. But you're right that it's not clear as written, so I will mention this in the prose at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
offering 6 trains — should be 'six'
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Middletown Railroad, Middletown Extension Railroad — any particular reason for bold-facing?
I suppose the reason was that these companies do not have articles of their own, and instead redirect to their respective subsections. I thought that was the right practice, but I may be mistaken. Should the boldface be removed here? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably yes. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a 2 mile long, a 5 mile long — suggesting to use {{Convert}}
Conversions added, though I opted against the template to preserve the "5 mile long" wording. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Commons category}} — should be in the see-also section, not before it.
That's what I get for using VE, I thought it already was in the see also section! Corrected now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That happens a lot! — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the "Technical" details in the info box is never mentioned in the prose
Mention of the route length, both for the main line and including branches, has been added to the prose. Stating that a railroad is standard gauge in the prose is not generally considered necessary for articles in countries where the predominant gauge is standard. To give you an example, South Lake Union Streetcar is a FA (promoted in 2019) and only mentions track gauge in the infobox. Incidentally, this article also uses the same format for unit conversions (miles spelt out, but km abbreviated). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I think most of the details of the lead+infobox should be in the prose, but that isn't a major issue here. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That tends to be an issue with train articles, where the infoboxes become massive Lovecraftian monsters occupying multiple page lengths, like at Union Pacific Big Boy. That particular infobox is definitely criminal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That particular infobox is definitely criminal: There is definitely no doubt in that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Images can take ALT text
Alt text has been added. I don't think I'm great at writing alt text so feel free to modify it if you want. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

The rail lines of southern New England : a handbook of railroad history — suggesting to change from sentence to title case
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved 2017-10-17 v. Retrieved November 29, 2021 — inconsistency in date style.
Resolved by adding a use dmy dates template to the top of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats mostly it. Putting on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I've done most of your suggestions, but a few need further comment from you when you get a chance, thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good! Promoting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]