Talk:Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad

Speedy

After removing the almost verbatim copyvio and excessively close paraphrasing htere is nothing left of this article. Meters (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to note that I removed my own A7 speedy request. A simple claim that the railway existed is a credible claim of significance It's not enough to show notability, but it's enough to avoid an A7 speedy. Meters (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad was formed because its founder's yearly pass for a competing railroad was denied a renewal by that company's president? Source: "Acton Road Foreclosure" The Telegraph (Nashua, New Hampshire), January 13, 1905. "It is said that the main promoter started to work up the new road because General Stark declined to renew his annual pass." [1]
  • ALT1:... that the construction of the Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad included the first ever use of dynamite in the state of New Hampshire? Source: "Acton Road Foreclosure" The Telegraph (Nashua, New Hampshire), January 13, 1905. "So he started out of Nashua, after getting free of the houses at Sandy pond and built the road for six miles past Dunstable depot as straight as a gun barrel. To do this they had to pierce a formidable ledge four miles out and in the work dynamite was used for the first time in New Hampshire." [2]
  • ALT2:... that the Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad was also known as the "Red Line" because it was consistently unprofitable? Source: The Rail Lines of Southern New England, by Ronald Dale Karr, p.217 "Older residents refer to the line locally as the "Red Line," supposedly on account of its heavy operating losses."

• Comment: This is my fourth DYK nom, so no QPQ is necessary.

5x expanded by Trainsandotherthings (talk). Self-nominated at 21:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC).

•  Comment: The local nickname of the "Red Line" (due to accounting losses, aka red ink) might also make a worthy hook. I've added that to the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good suggestion, I have added it as ALT2. Thanks for adding it to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Article is long enough. DYK Check claims it's not new enough, but from what I can see, it went from 801 prose (Special:Permalink/1048245685) to 5968 prose (Special:Permalink/1049803539) so I think it's good on that score. Earwig doesn't note any copyvio issues. No problems with WP:NPOV or WP:BLP. Everything looks well referenced and I don't see any issues with WP:RS. All of the proposed hooks appear to meet the requirements, but ALT2 stands out as the hookiest by far so I strongly suggest we go with that. The author states they are QPQ-exempt; I did not verify this, but accept it based on AGF. This is a really nice article. It covers a historic subject in the right amount of depth, and avoids the rail-fan trivia that all too frequently afflicts articles about railroads. Thanks for submitting it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P2

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 09:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

This one's short enough for me, I think. Look for my actual review sometime within the week - I'm distractible, but I will get to it.

Thank you for your patience! Here we go.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No GA-level issues here. The rest of these comments are nitpicks that go beyond the GA criteria - worth mentioning IMO but not anything I'll hold against you for not jumping on.

   You shouldn't need citations in the lead because anything in the lead should be cited in the body. On that note, anything linked for the first time in the lead should be linked again in the body. As those aren't GA criteria issues I obviously won't hold it against you in a GAN but figured it's worth mentioning.

   "Even before opening" could be "Prior to opening" - "even" sort of creates this tone of surprise, which (and I'm quoting Sdkb here from the Inuit clothing FAC) "threatens a bit the detached scholarly tone we want to take".

   You probably want to integrate the reference to "red ink" so that someone unfamiliar with the idiom doesn't have to click elsewhere to get the context.

   Abbreviations for companies are fine but should be put in brackets after the first mention of the full name (ie, Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M)) so readers know for sure who's who.

   There's no reason for Nashua and Acton Railroad Company to be bolded way down at the end of the article. You could include it in the lead, something like "The Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad (later the Nashua and Acton Railroad Company)..." if you really want it in the article bolded.

   Citations in the lead are an artifact from when I first started rewriting this article - I basically wrote it from scratch, bit by bit. The lead citations have been deleted (both are from Karr's book, so nothing was lost since it's cited elsewhere). "Even before opening" has been changed per your suggestion. Abbreviations should all be mentioned after the name of each railroad company. I've attempted to directly define the meaning behind "Red Line" in the prose, I'm open to further feedback on that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

   These changes all look good. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   I have no broad concerns here about reliability/verifiability, etc, although you seem to be missing a ref from the sentence that starts "At the time of the Nashua".

   I don't understand why you've used {{rp}} for a single ref but nowhere else - either it should be used for all of the book citations or none of them.

   That rp was added by a different editor, who inserted that one sentence while this article was at DYKN, I've deleted it. The missing ref has been added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Given the short operating history of this railroad I don't see issues with length/scope. I imagine you've squeezed as much out of the sources as you can, although I did find an interesting article on JSTOR that mentions a little bit of apparent bond fraud that occurred around the railroad's opening. I can send you the PDF if you're interested.

   I'd absolutely be interested in hearing about this, even if it's not necessary for GA status specifically. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

   I'll send it over once I'm at home :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   You've got a little bit of sandwiching between the quote box and the postcard image, and I absolutely hate that the box bumps the next section header over. Can we please move it? Even if we swap the quote with the image that would be better even if there's still sandwiching.

   I've swapped the quote and the image, which stopped the section header from getting bumped over. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

   Perfect, thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

7. Overall: Overall a good effort, basically ready to pass once a few minor things are sorted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail: