Talk:Shore Line East

Shore Line East has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 25, 2016	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 1, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 13, 2016.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Shore Line East service (train pictured) began in 1990, using equipment from the recently discontinued PATrain?

Current status: Good article

New England Public Transit (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject New England Public Transit, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.New England Public TransitWikipedia:WikiProject New England Public TransitTemplate:WikiProject New England Public TransitNew England Public Transit articles

Connecticut High‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in New York City Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 4, 2017

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as High-importance).

August 2013 update[edit]

Would somebody like to update Shore Line East's route map to include West Haven? Also, I am not sure about West Haven's milepost. I invite anybody to add that to the article.Raryel (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Grabbed the milepost from the Northeast Corridor article, and added it to the prose. Map template updated as well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect link in info box map[edit]

The line station sequence in the infobox has a link to Connecticut River. This is misleading because all of the other station links actually link to the articles on the station, e.g., New Haven RR station, New London RR station. Unfortunately, there is no way to edit the box, so as to remove the link that presently links to the Connecticut River, instead of to an article on the Connecticut River station.Dogru144 (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's intentional. The Connecticut River is a geographic feature; there hasn't been a "Connecticut River" station since... at least the 60s. (It was located on Ferry Road in Old Saybrook, but was long gone before SLE came into existence.) Normally RDTs like this do not include geographic features; however, the two bridges are relevant as they limit the ability to increase service levels. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Odd consist photo with Amtrak engine[edit]

This is a Connecticut Dept of Transportation operation. Yet, there is at least one photograph with a train being pulled by an Amtrak locomotive. This is confusing. Aren't Amtrak engines supposed to pull Amtrak trains?Dogru144 (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained in the "Rolling Stock" section. ConnDOT bought 8 P40DC Genesis locomotives from Amtrak; they are still in Amtrak paint but the Amtrak logo has been painted over. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. However as of 2021, they will no longer have the Amtrak scheme, instead they will now wear the CTrail scheme already used on the rebuilt GP40-3Hs and BL20GHMs (the latter doesn't operate on CTrail but is painted in the scheme regardless, minus the text).--Davidng913 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Map[edit]

Can someone please update the map to include the future stations of Mystic and Westerly--JJBers (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The extension to Mystic and Westerly is currently an unfunded proposal, certainly behind at least three other projects (Last burst of funding for the Hartford Line, Hartford-Waterbury, CT River Bridge) in the funding queue in the state. It has also not entered any kind of environmental review phase. AS such, it would be drastically premature to put it on the KML map. Just because we railfans want something to happen, doesn't mean it actually will. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shore Line East/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nazcheema (talk · contribs) 19:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, this being an interesting article, but I am applying immediate failure. The section "Rolling stock" is holding since February 2015 a "refimprove" banner and two sentences in the section are tagged for citation. I am referring you to WP:WIAGA#Immediate_failures which has one of its conditions saying: "it has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid". The banner has been there for over a year and it must be said that this article should not have been brought to GAN until that issue has been resolved. I have giving me no option other than to be applying immediate failure. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 10:35, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shore Line East/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nazcheema (talk · contribs) 09:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the review[edit]

Hi, all. I will commence this second review soon. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 09:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full review criteria checks[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for the six good article criteria:

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without spelling or grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead (e.g., limit of four paragraphs):

C. MoS compliance for layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):

C. No bare URLs WP:BAREURLS:

D. No original research:

E. No copyright violations:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

This being an excellent article now that the refimprove banner has been lifted, I am having no hesitation in passing, it is a GA review success. I would be recommending that this might be worthy of an FA nomination, it is easily the best article of those I have been reviewing to date. Very well done and thank you, Pi.1415926535. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 14:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Previous service[edit]

This could apply to the whole article, but I'm wondering if it should be made clearer that this is a class of service (local), complementing numerous limited-stop intercity trains on the same route? Mackensen (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Past Roster[edit]

Many railroad articles that include Roster's have a current in-service roster, and a past (retired units) roster. Just wondering if that would be a good idea here or not. Interstate Railfan (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good idea - could you reference some articles that have these rosters? TheKenster (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]