Talk:History of the Staten Island Railway/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 13:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. This is the page I have worked the hardest on. Thank you. I look forward to a thorough review.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've only had time to glance at the article so far, but it looks impressively detailed. I may not get a chance to work on this much till the weekend, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I go through; please feel free to revert any mistakes I make.

Lead and "First line: 1836–1885"

The lead is rather short; per WP:LEADLENGTH this should be at least three paragraphs, and probably four.
Not relevant for GA, but FYI, as I'm going through the sources I see you have an 1884 map linked to a web source. Since this is now out of copyright you could grab the image and upload it to commons if you wanted to.
- This one is shown in the article already.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~What makes nycroads.com a reliable source?~~
- I've replaced with a more reliable source. epicgenius (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This charter for the Staten Island Railroad Company was signed on August 2, 1851: I don't understand "This" charter; is it just a typo for "The charter"? And what charter is this? The following sentence talks of a plan being presented to him, though no plan has been discussed. Or if this is a reference to the Tottenville-to-Stapleton line, then that needs to be clearer; and no charter has been mentioned there either.

I think that I have reworked it.

Done

Vanderbilt tried to stop competitors who had previously owned the railroad's lease; he appointed James R. Robinson to build a structure to block his competitors but on July 28, 1851, people tried to deconstruct the almost-finished structure and threatened to hurt Robinson if he tried to block them: I don't follow this. What could these competitors do without a railroad charter, and how? What was Robinson building a structure to stop -- another railroad?
Done
Looks like this is incompletely edited; you have a sentence ending "before he could get". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
More elaborate structures were put in place at Eltingville and Annadale—whose namesakes, the Eltings family and Anna Seguine, were influential in paying for the construction of the rail line: more elaborate than what? I think you mean something like "The stations built at Eltingville and Annadale—whose namesakes, the Eltings family and Anna Seguine, were influential in paying for the construction of the rail line—were the most elaborate".

Done

William Vanderbilt managed the receivership well enough to be discharged, having paid off the debt: the receivership was discharged, not William Vanderbilt, so I think you want "William Vanderbilt managed the receivership well enough for it to be discharged, with the debt paid off".

Done

~~In March 1864, Vanderbilt bought Law's ferries: which Vanderbilt -- William or Jacob?~~

Done

the property of the company was sold to the attorney George Law in foreclosure: I take it this is the same George Law that ran the ferries? If so I'd mention that he's an attorney when you first give his name, and when it comes to this sentence, make it clear it's the same person.

Done

Law and Theall sold out to a company composed largely of shareholders; Law threatened to form a company of his own if they did not come to his terms promptly. Some of the smaller stockholders neglected to join in the purchase: I don't follow this; can you clarify?
Done
This is better, but since all companies are owned by shareholders, it's confusing to mention it. I think you could make this just "Some time after, Law and Theall sold the railroad and ferry to the Staten Island Railway Company. Law had threatened...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
~~split into separate rail companies to prevent one from leading to the demise of the other: better to spell it out: perhaps "to prevent problems with one from...".~~

Done

~~He operated it until it was taken over by the SIRT: we haven't mentioned the SIRT yet, so I would spell the name out in full here.~~

Done -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SIRT/B&O operation: 1880–1900

he incorporated The Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad Company on March 25, 1880. It was officially incorporated on April 14, 1880. Those two different dates look odd; do we know what the difference is between them?
- Not sure. I couldn't find it in the source. @Kew Gardens 613: epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  A good way to handle this is to say "early 1880" in the text, and add a note saying "Source X gives the incorporation date as March 25, 1880, but source Y gives it as April 14". That lets the reader know about the source conflict without cluttering the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't a conflict. On the first date it was organized, and on the second date it was incorporated. I changed th text to reflect it.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A separate point: this is the first mention of SIRT, correct? If so, I'd introduce the acronym here, and use it below where possible instead of spelling out the name.
- Well, technically the first company was the SIRTRC. The real SIRT, the Staten Island Rapid Transit, came later, and is thus properly introduced later in the article. epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Right. This is confusing, because the companies are similarly named. I see SIRTRC has been used in one place, but can we replace "Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad Company" with "SIRTRC" wherever it occurs outside the lead, after the first appearance? And give the acronym at that first appearance? I also see that the article has both "Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad Company" and "Staten Island Rapid Transit Railway Company"; which is correct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  @Mike Christie and Kew Gardens 613: I don't know. I was confused about this too; there's a book from 1860 where the Staten Island Railway Company writes about the organization of the Staten Island Railroad Company. epicgenius (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I dealt with all of the confusion.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Done[reply]
~~Wiman's plan called for a belt system: what is a "belt system"?~~
{{Wiman's plan called for a belt system using two miles of the old Staten Island Rail Road, between Vanderbilt's Landing and Tompkinsville, and the coordination of all ferries from one terminal. Previously, there had been six to eight terminals located near Saint George. Wiman sought to expand the line and approached Robert Garrett, president of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, to back the building of a large rail terminal on the island and centralize the ferry landings; Garret agreed.}} This is a little repetitive; we give his plan, then restate it. How about "Wiman's plan called for a belt system using two miles of the old Staten Island Rail Road, between Vanderbilt's Landing and Tompkinsville, and for the centralization of all ferries from one terminal, replacing the six to eight terminals active near Saint George. Wiman approached Robert Garrett, president of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, to back the plan; Garret agreed..."
~~At that time, his company neither owned nor controlled a railroad: does "his" refer to Wiman or Garrett?~~
however, Law refused to renew the option a second time: as written this implies Wiman obtained an option, then Law renewed it, then Law refused to renew it when it next expired. I suspect it was the first renewal that was difficult; if so, I'd make this "however, Law refused to renew the option when it expired".
~~Law was humored by the gesture and granted Wiman the option: odd phrase -- should this be "amused by"?~~
~~The fine details of the route extension to Tompkinsville are a bit too much for the body of the article; I'd suggest moving them to a note.~~
Based on the settling of the island's interior, additional spur lines would have been built: not sure what this means -- do you mean Wiman assumed, in his plans, that spur lines would be built as the population increased in the interior? If so, how about "Wiam assumed that additional spur lines would be built to serve population growth in the island's interior".
- Fixed all of the above. epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some comments above about the company names, but I am not convinced I have it all correct yet. Here's what I think I get from the article; can you tell me if this is right? I've made up some acronyms just to make it easier to refer to them.

1838- 1838 Failed attempt to build a railway. Company name is Staten Island Rail-Road Company.
1849-1872 Development and operation of Staten Island Railway Company (SIRWC); founded by Vanderbilt, sold to Law in 1872. Also referred to in the article prior to this point as Staten Island Railroad (SIRR) and Staten Island Railway (SIRW).
On 9/17/1872, Law buys the property of the company, so at this point the SIRWC doesn't have any property, and Law doesn't have a company.
Then Law sells the property back (to the same company he bought it from, it appears: SIRWC).
In 1873 a new charter is created, for Staten Island Railway. This name has been used earlier in the article, but here it appears to be a new entity, so I don't follow this.
On 4/1/1873 Law transfers SIRR's property to SIRWC. Is this the same transfer mentioned a couple of setnences previously? If not, what exactly happened?

If you can clarify the exact names and what refers to what that would be very helpful. I'll carry on with the review, probably later today, or else tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished going through the rest of the section, and I now think that some of this explanation is going to have be in the article. How about a table, with columns showing dates, names, and abbreviations used in the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grading work on the section between Clifton (previously Vanderbilt's Landing) and Tottenville began at this time, and during early 1884, construction continued with such energy that this section, which had been expected to open on September 1, opened on July 31 that year. This implies that no trains were running at the time the section opened, but you don't actually say that. Earlier you say the SIR was "barely operational"; did it actually cease operations completely, so the line went dead?
I feel really stupid. It is Tompkinsville, not Tottenville. I don't know how that mistake occurred. The line was not dead. This was an extension. Done
~~In 1910, the SIR withdrew its property at Main Street that has been the old ferry docks: what does "withdrew its property" mean?~~
Done
~~The bridge's drawspan was 500 feet (150 m), the fixed spans were 150 feet (46 m), and there were 208 feet (63 m), making the bridge 800 feet (240 m) wide: what was 208 feet?~~
Done
~~J.P. Morgan replaced the railroad's top management to refinance it: there's no causation here, surely, so this would be better as "and refinanced it".~~

Done

What is a ticket chopper?
- I think that I clarified it. Done

Modernization: 1900–1949

~~PRR control of the line decreased with a new PRR president: why does this follow?~~
Done
~~On May 3, 1948, the United States House of Representatives approved a bill to permit the SIRT...: we don't need the separate details of the House, Senate, and presidential approvals.~~
Done

Service scaledowns and the end of B&O operation: 1947–1971

~~Borough President Hall continued to rally against the SIRT's cuts: "rally" needs a direct object -- perhaps "rally the community"? Or do you mean something like "continued to oppose the SIRT's cuts"?~~
Done
~~Hall suggested lowering the fare to 10 cents or a 20-cent round trip to make up the lost money: what lost money? And how would lowering a fare help recover lost money?~~
Done
~~The paragraph starting On December 19, 1952, by a unanimous decision... seems repetitive; isn't it giving the same information twice?~~
I don't understand the issue.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have On December 19, 1952, by a unanimous decision, the PSC gave the SIRT permission to discontinue service on the North Shore Branch and South Beach Branch after March 31, 1953 and the SIRT discontinued passenger service on the North Shore Branch and the South Beach Branch at midnight on March 31, 1953 in quick succession. I know the first sentence says they got permission, and the second one says they went ahead and did it, but it's very repetitive. Can the two sentences be combined in some way to eliminate the repetition? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The SIRT had sought permission to end service to Tottenville. This seems out of place here; it's covered in more detail in the next section. I'd either cut it from this paragraph, or give a few more details here in order to keep the whole in chronological order.
Done
~~These cars were 11.7 percent larger than the cars then in service on the SIRT: three decimal places is surely too precise. Does the source give it this way?~~

The source says this.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is a "shoo-fly track"?~~

It means a temporary track. [1] I just changed it so that non-train buffs can understand what is meant.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done

City operation of passenger service: 1971–present

~~the line's 61 motormen and conductors went on strike, which once they voted to receive 14% wage increases: something wrong here.~~
Done
~~making it the 50th station, New York City Subway and Staten Island Railway, to accept it: does this mean "50th subway or LIRR station"? If so I'd use that wording.~~
Done
The paragraph starting "In June 2005" uses present tense, which is a bit awkward because it describes something that happened twelve years ago. I assume it's becausea this system is still in use. If so, I'd make it "In June 2005, a new cab signaling system and a new control center went into effect at St. George; the system is still in use as of February 2018" or whatever date you can source.
Done I did this somewhat differently.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but "is still in use" needs an "as of" date, per WP:ASOF. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done

Decline and rebirth of freight: 1971–present

No issues.

Summary

The article is in excellent shape. Most of what's above is minor, but I would like to get a clearer understanding of the confusingly named companies, and make sure that the article reflects them correctly, before promoting this to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like everything is struck above except for the concern about the confusing names. Could we make a table here to capture the variations? I can create one if you're not sure what I'm talking about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The table is what I was looking for. I should have time tonight to go through the article again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And one other thing: the lead is still too short. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through to look at the new abbreviations: On April 3, 1883, the Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad Company gained control of the Staten Island Railway Company and its boats: can we make this "the SIRTR gained control of the SIRW"? Once that's done, and the lead is lengthened to comply with WP:LEADLENGTH, I'll promote the article to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last issues have been dealt with. Thank you for taking up a review that other reviewers were hesitant to take up due to its length. Thank you for being thorough!--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had to trim a bit -- you added more than WP:LEADLENGTH allows, but it was fairly easy to trim. Tweak it some more if you think I made the wrong choices, but we do need to stick to no more than four paragraphs.

Thanks for an interesting and thoroughly-researched read. I'm promoting this to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]