Talk:Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page views[edit]

When did "temporarily" start to mean "for months"? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Close paraphrasing[edit]

From https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1057879606&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fsites.google.com%2Fsite%2Fnelsonalbemarle%2Farchive-this-month-s-articles%2Faugust-2019-article https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=1057879606&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.trainboard.com%2Fhighball%2Findex.php%3Fthreads%2Frail-to-the-granite-mountain.33892%2F (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is surprising. If the offending passage(s) was identified, it would be possible to rewrite it. Please specify where the problem is. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those both now say "violations unlikely". --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

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) 09:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )
  • ... that the Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad was "just as wide" as the New York Central?Source: Last paragraph in article: 'W.H. Fullerton, a director of the H&W,[26]: 46  contacted a counterpart at the New York Central Railroad to propose that they exchange free-travel passes on one another’s railroads. Facing a rebuttal, he allowed that the Hardwick & Woodbury might not be as long as the mighty New York Central but, he maintained, it was “just as wide.”[40]' Citing: Herald and News from Randolph, Vermont, February 13, 1902, p. 5.
  • ALT1: ... that the fortunes of the Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad were inextricably linked to those of the Woodbury Granite Company? Source: "the railroad’s fortunes were inextricably tied to those of the granite industry, particularly its dominant local operator, the Woodbury Granite Company." Citing Marvin R. Kendall and Donald B. Valentine, Jr., “Rough Granite, Tough Shays: The History of the Hardwick & Woodbury R.R.”, The New England States Limited, Vol. 1, No. 3, Winter 1977-78, p. 26.

Created by Piledhigheranddeeper (talk). Self-nominated at 12:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Full review needed of both articles. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I edited the above links for QPQ credits to point to the nomination instead of the article. Flibirigit (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Review of Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article created on November 29 and nominated within 7 days. Length is adequate. Sourcing for the article has been done well, and only one sentence needs a citation. The article is neutral in tone with only minor concerns tagged, such as a {{to whom}}. No plagiarism concerns detected, and direct quotes are properly attributed. All images used in the article are freely licensed and uploaded to the English Wikipedia (not the Commons). The nominator has provided more QPQ credits than required, thanks! Further comment on the hooks pending review of Woodbury Granite Company. Overall this article is in good condition and it would be great to see on the main page. I will continue the review a bit later today. Flibirigit (talk) 13:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of the Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad article. A few questions: You have flagged a number of passages that contain terms like "apparently" or "unsurprisingly", asking "to whom". These are according to the works cited at the end of the passage. The authors of those works are not such luminaries that I would feel comfortable in saying "as observed by Wood" or "according to Dow". These are people whose work appears (to me) to be dominated by these specific topics (I didn't know who Elizabeth Dow was until researching this article, for example). How would you suggest these be handled? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I have copied the comment above from User talk:Flibirigit to here to keep the conversation in one place. Flibirigit (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added the maintenance templates because I felt that the text was vague and contained WP:WEASEL words. Adding attribution to who/what made the statement would be more clear and an improvement. The documention at Template:According to whom lists examples of attribution. Flibirigit (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the two templates removed with this edit: The first appears to be cited to Paul Wood from a book or journal. Since the source is offline, I cannot tell whether the statement is a personal opinion of the author or a widely held opinion. The second template is cited to John Barnhill from an online discussio forum. I question whether it passes WP:RS, and also whose opinion it is. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Template:According to whom advises "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire "According to whom?" in that circumstance." I think I'm getting the idea re the sourcing (sometimes these things take a while...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piledhigheranddeeper (talk • contribs)
Thank you for pointing that out. I may have been overzealous in seeking clarity. I will revisit the changes when I get to a full-sized computer on Monday. Flibirigit (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The article for Hardwick and Woodbury Railroad is good to go. Flibirigit (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Review of Woodbury Granite Company
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article created on November 29 and nominated within 7 days. Length is adequate. Sourcing for the article has been done well, and only a few sentences need a citation. The article is neutral in tone with only minor concerns tagged, such as a {{to whom}}. No plagiarism concerns detected, and direct quotes are properly attributed. All images used in the article are freely licensed and uploaded to the English Wikipedia (not the Commons). The nominator has provided more QPQ credits than required, thanks! The article has a lengthy list of buildings which used granite from the company. I question the merit of having such a long list of non-notable buildings since it seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Please note that the list is the main area of concern flagged by the Earwig tool. Further comments on the hooks will be made a bit later today. Overall this article is in good condition and it would be great to see on the main page. Flibirigit (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Multiple improvements have been made. Three tags are outstanding for the Woodbury Granite Company. Flibirigit (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done All maintenance tags have been resolved. The article for Woodbury Granite Company is good to go. Flibirigit (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Review of hooks
  • ALT0 is verified by the newspaper source, but the hook is misleading since it takes a joke and represents it as a fact. A better more accurate hook would be something "joking" or "reportedly" just as wide. ALT1 is interesting, appears to be sourced to an offline journal or magazine with an adequate citation. I will assume good faith on its contents. ALT2 is a combination of offline and online sources, but I have the same concerns as ALT0. Flibirigit (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While the comment about the railroads being equally wide is presented as a joke, it is true: they are both "standard gauge" (the rails are 4 feet, 8&1/2 inches—1,435 mm—apart). It's an example of art imitating life, I suppose. The joke is in how the fact was used. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The wording in the hook should also be presented as a joke. Flibirigit (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will think about ALT2a and comment later. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck ALT0 and ALT2 since the wording for ALT1 and ALT2a is more accurate. I hope to do a final approval of the nomination on Monday. Flibirigit (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Hooks ALT1 and ALT2a would be approved when the questions on Woodbury Granite Company are resolved. Flibirigit (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hooks ALT1 and ALT2a are approved by AGF on the offline source in combination with online verification of the joke as noted above. Both articles adhere to DYK policies as per above reviews. Flibirigit (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 to T:DYK/P7

"Decline" photo[edit]

This article has a photo for each section except "Decline"; does anyone have any ideas? Something showing damage from the Great Flood might work, if it was not still copyrighted (and permission could not be obtained). --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hardwick_and_Woodbury_Railroad&oldid=1202587643"