Template:Did you know nominations/North Shore Branch

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

North Shore Branch[edit]

(

)

Abandoned viaduct

... that the Staten Island Railway's North Shore Branch was discontinued 16 years after it was rebuilt? NY Times (reopened 1937), SI Advance (discontinued 1953)
- ALT1:... that the construction of the Staten Island Railway's North Shore Branch viaduct was the largest railroad crossing-removal initiative in the United States? NY Times

Reviewed: Hopkins County Museum and Heritage Park

Improved to Good Article status by Epicgenius (talk), Kew Gardens 613 (talk), and Tdorante10 (talk). Nominated by Epicgenius (talk) at 01:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC).

Article is long enough and since no major changes have been made since the GA review, I will assume there are no sourcing issues or plagiarism. The hook is within policy. The second link does not clearly support the hook, but the Staten Island Advance reference (#38) used in the article does. @Epicgenius:: Only outstanding issue is the QPQ review. AHeneen (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@AHeneen: please don't assume that a GA review is like a DYK review. For DYK, you should provide a review that explicitly confirms that the five main DYK criteria have been met. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

To follow up on the above, there are a number of newly minted GAs that, when they hit DYK, were discovered to have issues missed by the GA reviewer, up to and including extensive copyvio. You cannot assume anything based on the GA review, and need to do your own independent checks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset and AHeneen: I completed a QPQ. epicgenius (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Pass. No issues with Earwigs. While reference #15 was used for a lot of the history section, that is a thorough article on the subject and therefore some overlap is unavoidable, but comparing the two, there does not seem to be any close paraphrasing. AHeneen (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)