Talk:Rhinebeck and Connecticut Railroad

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Bneu2013 (talk · contribs) 08:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this nomination and have comments very soon. I still need to read over the article thoroughly. I'd also appreciate it if someone would be willing to review some of my GA nominations. Bneu2013 (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: Are you still interested in this review? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Yes, I will have my first comments in a few hours. The Christmas holiday season got me behind for a few days, but I should be able to continue the review over the next week. I'm also doing another review, which is probably too much for me, but since there's such a huge backlog of interviewing nominations, I was trying to help with that. Anyways, if I get behind again, please ping me. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• Images are properly licensed.

• Passes the Earwig test (perfectly!)

@Pi.1415926535: - I've posted all of my comments. Once you address them, the article should be good to go. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: See my replies below - just about everything done. Thanks for the review! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! I think it's ready to pass. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• For the opening date in the infobox, should this be the date the first section opened or the last section?
  • It's standard for it to be whenever the first portion of the line opens for regular scheduled service.
• Date comma after "1882".
  •  Done
• was a railroad in Dutchess County and Columbia County, New York, United States. - suggest rewording to something like "was a railroad in Dutchess and Columbia Counties in the U.S. state of New York."
  •  Partly done - Changed the first part, but kept the existing shorter wording for the second part.
• Suggest changing "Pennsylvania coal" to "coal mined in Pennsylvania".
  •  Done
• Link "mainline" to main line (railway).
  •  Done
• Link "New England".
  •  Done
• Suggest changing "empire" to "business empire" or something like that.
  •  Done
• after several mergers, the H&CW, including the ex-R&C, became part of the Central New England Railway (CNE) in 1899. - alternatively, I don't know if "including the ex-R&C is even needed".
  •  Done
• Was "ex-R&C" a common name for this line?
  • This is a tricky one. There's no real consistency between sources with how the line is referred to after the company was merged into the H&CW, so it ends up being an editorial judgement call. I find the ex- prefix to be the cleanest; it's what I've used in similar situations with Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad and Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad (both GAs).

History

Construction

• Is there any information about the background and planning of this railroad before it was chartered?
  • In many cases, there was little planning before the charter except for an approximate route. This appears to be one of those cases, since the survey wasn't until six months after the charter.
    • Ok, if you happen to find anything, I suggest adding it. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• Suggest a brief description of a few words of Cornell at the end of that sentence.
  •  Done
• Were any of the promoters notable or likely to be notable?
  • Other than Cornell, it doesn't appear so. None of my sources even list them.
• Was there by any chance a groundbreaking ceremony marking the start of construction? If so, I'd include this.
  • Not that I've seen any reference to.
• Freight service was operated beginning in 1873 even as construction continued eastward. - reword to something like "Freight service began operation in 1873 even as construction continued Eastward". Also, if a more precise date that freight service began is available, I suggest including this. Finally, was the route constructed in sequence from west to east, or were there sections in between that were eventually bridged?
  •  Partly done Reworded to clarify. Unfortunately, a more precise
• Construction work reached Jackson Corners that October, Mount Ross in November, Gallatinville in May 1874, and Boston Corners in November 1874. - was this when construction began or when the line was completed in those areas?
  • In those days, it was often more or less the same thing - a given point might have its railbed graded and rails laid in a matter of days.
• Rearrange references 2, 11, and 12 at the end of the third paragraph into the proper order. Ditto all other instances of this.
  •  Not done Per WP:CITEORDER, there's no need to reorder references into numerical order.
    • There's no requirement to, but it still doesn't hurt to do it. I've seen lots of GA and FA reviewers request it, and have been asked to do it myself on many occasions. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Done, but I still not not agree that it is recommended per that guideline.
• Suggest inflation adjustment for $1.
  •  Done
• Did the Dutchess and Columbia also roughly follow the same route or connect the same locations?
  •  Done Clarified.
• What is "State Line" at the end of the fourth paragraph? Link to proper article.
  •  Done Added some words earlier in the article to clarify.
• Suggest retitling section "Construction and early history".
  •  Done

Mergers

• What were the causes of the R&C's financial troubles?
  • It's not clear - neither contemporary nor later sources give much detail.
• Suggest linking "state legislature" to "New York State Assembly". Also, did the state legislature have to approve the previous purchase by Cornell?
  •  Done Likely, but I don't have any specific record of it in my sources.
• I feel like The bridge was completed in December 1888 belongs in the previous paragraph, and The Poughkeepsie Bridge was built in the late 1880s is a duplicate. You could open the third paragraph with a sentence about when the bridge was finished and that it crossed the Hudson or something like that.
  • I've reworded slightly to clarify - the third paragraph is about the railroad system formed during the bridge's construction; the fourth paragraph is about its opening and usage.
• Flip refs 1 and 22 into proper order.
  •  Not done, see above.
• The P&C opened six days later. - should this say "The CNE&W opened six days later."
  • It was the line built as the P&C; I've added a word for clarity.
• Suggest brief few-word description of Poughkeepsie Bridge Route in this sentence.
  •  Done
• I must admit that throughout much of this section, particularly between the second and fourth paragraphs, it is kind of confusing and difficult to follow which railroads the former R&C consisted of. I suggest elaborating if possible.
  • Welcome to the hellscape that is writing about the Central New England and its predecessors. In the 30 years that preceded the formation of the Central New England in 1899, there were no less than 27 different predecessor companies. (See ref 22, which doesn't even include all of them.) I'm actually planning to create a flowchart, but it likely won't be done in time for this review.
    • Ok that makes sense. If there's no way to explain this without going into excessive detail (and risk going off topic), then I suggest leaving as is. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Central New England

• Link "receivership".
  •  Done
• Who was the line sold to?
  •  Done
• The CNE struggled along for five years until the New Haven obtained control in early 1904. - reword to something like "The railroad continued to struggle under the CNE until the New Haven obtained control in early 1904."
  •  Partly done That wording isn't quite accurate; I reworded to clarify.
• Reword "formerly the PH&B" and "formerly the Dutchess and Columbia" to "successor to the PH&B" and "successor to the Dutchess and Columbia" since they are mentioned earlier in the article.
  •  Done
• Is the exact date the trestle was removed unknown?
  • None of the sources I found give any more detail.
• Link "World War I".
  •  Done
• Is a more precise date for The New Haven terminated passenger service on the CNE system in Connecticut in late 1927 available, considering the following sentence?
  • Unfortunately, some of the dates of passenger service termination on the system aren't well recorded – I can't even find a single contemporary mention of Rhinecliff service ending. It appears that the service in Connecticut ended in two or more phases over a few weeks to a month, of which only one of the dates is reliably fixed, so "late 1927" is the best I can give.
• change "approved it that August" to "approved this two months later".
  •  Not done It wasn't exactly two months, so I think the current wording is best.
• Change "ex-CNE" to "former CNE" unless this is a common name. Ditto "ex-R&C".
  • See my comment above.
• Was the line used at all between 1933 and 1938? And what happened to the route of the tracks after they were removed? For example, was a trail or road constructed along the route by any chance?
  •  Done Added a sentence about freight service during that time. Other than a few short driveways, the right-of-way hasn't been reused for anything. (I suspect that's largely because of the relatively early abandonment date, long prior to railbanking being common. That means the land was sold off rather than being kept under a single ownership, so reuses like roads or trails are less feasible.)

• Suggest retitling section to something like "Decline and decommission".
  • I don't think that's the best section title, since only half of the section deals with its decline.
    • Ok, I guess we can leave as is. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Route

• Is a more precise figure for the length available by any chance?
  • No, unfortunately. Sources seem to vary from about 35.04 to 35.20 miles. That's not an uncommon level of variation for the era - it could be due to minor track layout changes, measurement variations, or other factors.
• Link "Elizaville" to "Elizaville, New York".
  •  Done
• Suggest brief description of Roeliff Jansen Kill.
  • I don't think this is necessary - the wikilink is sufficient.
• and the maximum altitude was 800 feet (240 m) - also suggest changing "altitude" to "elevation", since the former is more commonly used to refer to points above the surface of the earth. Also, I'm guessing 800 feet is the elevation above mean sea level, right?
  • Done on the first point, and correct - I added that.

• What was the lowest elevation?
  • Minimal - the Hudson is only a few feet above sea level at Rhinecliff. Added a few words to clarify.

References

• Add |via=Google Books to citation 2, 22, 26, 32, 33, 34.
  •  Done
• Add |via=HathiTrust Digital Library to citation 30.
  •  Done
• Add volume to citation 34.
  •  Done
• Citation 35 appears to be dead. Also, it looks like it came from the David Rumsey Historical Map Collection. I suggest adding |via=David Rumsey Historical Map Collection
  •  Done Link fixed and para added.
• This isn't a requirement, but I strongly encourage you to add the access dates for all citations with urls.
  • I do so for sources where the access date is relevant (online news articles, etc). For scans of existing paper documents (as all online sources in this article are), access date isn't relevant since the document will not change.
    • Ok, that makes sense. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.