Talk:Connecticut Southern Railroad/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Etrius ( Us) 03:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 06:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, lets get this review underway. I am quite familiar with T&OT's work and have high hopes for this review. Per usual, please use a Done, ~~strikethrough~~ , or some other means of making when an issue has been resolved.

Stability[edit]

Nothing to note. T&OT is the primary author with very little activity on the page outside of their expansions.

Copy-Vios[edit]

Earwig gives this the green light.
Did a handful of random copy-vio spotchecks, nothing exciting noted.

Sourcing[edit]

Recommend having IABot run through and make sure everything is archived.
IABot is not working right now, so that isn't possible. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I tried to sign up to use it, and it never sent me a confirmation email, while demanding I confirm my email before I can use it. So I'm stuck. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, IABot is out of disk space. It's fine, its always a nice thing to archive everything but not necessary. Etrius ( Us) 01:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you attach a 'Type' note to FN 1 that you need to input CSO into the searchbar? Took me a minute to realize it wasn't a dead link
Does the change I made address this? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it. Just need a note so that no one tags it as dead/truncated. Etrius ( Us) 03:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CS1 maint: url-status tag, please fix
I don't really think this is within the scope of the GA criteria, but I've removed the url status parameters causing this to occur. I'm pretty sure I've had things go through FAC successfully without anyone catching this, actually. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a sucker for maintenance tag clean-up. I like to be proactive on this stuff since I've seen at WikiProject Anarchism how these things can back up. I appreciate you humoring me. Etrius ( Us) 03:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Manual check of the sources finds they are reliable and none are dead links

Images[edit]

One fair use image with rational given. 'Author or copyright owner' section is blank. I get that it can be reasonably inferred but please humor me and fill it out.
I'll do you one better - I've replaced the old logo with an SVG from the company's website (and filled out the author information). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No other concerns noted.

Prose[edit]

Lead

MOS:LEADCITE
Are you referring to the citation for the reporting mark? LEADCITE isn't a blanket ban on citations in the lead section. For the reporting mark, I don't see an issue with a citation there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hartford Yard, not cited in the body
Now cited. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
North Haven is mentioned in the lead but isn't mentioned or cited elsewhere
Mentioned and cited in body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary 3rd paragraph with only 3 small sentences. Remove the break and add to the end of paragraph 2.
Fair enough, done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CSO carried 20,000 carloads in 2011. carloads of what? The preceding sentences imply this is something specific. I assume it is total freight, per the citation but its unclear here.
Carloads of all types combined. The annual carloads number is used in the rail industry as a fast and easy way to tell how big a railroad company is. 20,000 carloads a year is on the higher end for a Class III carrier, generally speaking. The new 2022 Connecticut State Rail Plan has updated information, and was just released recently. I'll be using it to update things. For instance, it says traffic volume now is approximately 18,500 carloads a year. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link lumber, steel, and carbon dioxide.
Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the railroad's traffic comes from imports to Connecticut Not mentioned/cited elsewhere
This is now mentioned and cited in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know CITELEAD has a number of exceptions. I just want to confirm that it's appropriate for this kind of article. WikiProject Trains isn't my normal wheelhouse. Etrius ( Us) 03:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most examples I've seen (just checked a few GAs/FAs) actually don't cite the reporting mark at all, so this is certainly better than that! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Gauge size is not mention in the body of the article. No citation on the info-box.
The entire U.S. rail network (with very few exceptions) is standard gauge [1][2]. You will not find a citation stating the track gauge of every single railroad, as this is considered common knowledge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds good. No need to cite if common knowledge. Etrius ( Us) 21:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

Layout is a bit strange. I don't see the need for 5 discrete paragraphs. 2-3 should suffice.
Section has been fleshed out now, so this should no longer be an issue. Let me know if you disagree. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
which became CSO's new connection in West Springfield and New Haven not supported by citation.
New source used. I was trying to establish that Conrail was taken over by CSX. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing past 2012? I did a cursory search and found another line being abandoned. Please do a double check to make sure this page is up-to-date. I can try to compile some sources if you want.
I actually was aware of that abandonment, but had forgotten about it until you reminded me. Added to the article now. I've also added some information on the Hartford Line opening in 2018, and reactivation of a connection with the Providence and Worcester Railroad in 2019. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operations

No mention of 26,000 carloads of freight annually at its peak.?
Mention added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another source of traffic is the export of trash and recycling from Connecticut not finding this in the cited source
The source does discuss export of garbage. Of CSO’s business, 70 percent is importing to New England. Even the majority of what is exported is waste sent to Midwest landfills, a byproduct of the consumers market. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I was just missing it. Thanks for double checking. Etrius ( Us) 01:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rail service to Suffield ended.. source is being under-utilized. Some more context would be useful
I'm actually getting hard paywalled by this source now (which didn't happen when I first added it last year), so I'm afraid my hands are tied here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend using a Bypass paywall extension for Chrome/Firefox. I have access to the article and added a bit myself. Etrius ( Us) 02:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, but the Courant author appears to have made a few mistakes which I have corrected (the Windsor Locks and Suffield was merged into the Hartford and New Haven, not the New York, New Haven and Hartford, as the latter wasn't formed until 1872). I actually wasn't aware of the trolley use! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This line serves an All Waste recycling facility source missing
I've removed this, as I couldn't find a source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putting page on hold. I trust you can manage to clean-up/clarify these issues. Please ping me when you're done or if you have any questions. I'll probably add more things as the review get going, these are just my initial concerns (as I sit here and write at 1 AM). I made a handful of minor edits, feel free to check them. Etrius ( Us) 06:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings I see all of my concerns have been addressed. Went ahead and gave it a second pass. Page is good to go and passes GA review. Congratulation on another job well done. Etrius ( Us) 03:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Yes
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Yes
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):
All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Article passes GA review. Good work!

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.