Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wood River Branch Railroad/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 May 2023 [1].

Wood River Branch Railroad[edit]

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a little-known shortline railroad in Rhode Island with a very interesting history. 5.6 miles in length, it opened in 1874 and connected rural Hope Valley, Rhode Island, to the national rail network at Wood River Junction, Rhode Island. In addition to shipments for local residents, the company served a number of mills, a factory, a coal dealer, and a lumbering operation; later, a grain mill became the primary customer. Passengers and mail were also carried until 1927.

Money was always short, and the railroad had some very interesting events as a result - one man became president in 1904 to make sure the railroad kept running so his mother wouldn't be isolated at her Hope Valley home. The railroad was almost abandoned after major flooding in 1927, but a deal was worked out where Southern New England's dominant railroad, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, intervened to keep the line going. In 1937, grain mill owner and former speaker of the Rhode Island House of Representatives Roy Rawlings bought the railroad for $301 (not a typo). The company finally came to its end in 1947 when the grain mill and several other buildings were consumed by a series of fires. A few remnants of the line can still be found today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention I intend to claim this nomination for WikiCup points. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    Alt text added for all images. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wood_River_Branch_Wincheck.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    Uncertain, other than in the United States. That's why I used the license for presumed copyright expired where copyright term is life +70 years and the date of author's death is unknown. I do have a beginning and end year for when this photo could have been taken, and the latest possible year is 1896, 127 years ago, when the locomotive was reported as inoperable and never ran again. I cannot envision any scenario where this image is copyrighted still in the United States. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The life term is not an issue, but the tag also indicates a publication before 1928? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an inherent part of the template on Commons: [2]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm an idiot and just realized there's another template without the published before 1928 part. I've swapped to that template now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is, but a US tag is needed in addition to that one. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, I wish I could definitively say when it was first published... this is a bit of a pain. Would PD-US-unpublished work? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: Are you certain it wasn't published before? If not, you cannot apply above license. A09 (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't know for certain when it was first published. But I maintain that there's almost no way a >127 year old photograph originally taken in the United States can remain copyrighted to this day. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the earliest publication that can be identified? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is present in "Two Tickets on the Wood River Train" which was published in 2018 and is the primary source for the article. It is stated to be part of the Langworthy Library's collection. I could contact them or pay them a visit to find out more but that could take me a while. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's kind of a technicality, but if the image was first published between 1928 and 2002 it could still be copyrighted. The 120 years after creation expiry only applies to works never published before 2002. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do find it quite absurd such an image could still be copyrighted, but not sure what to do at this point. It would be quite ridiculous if no free images of steam locomotives can be found for a railroad started in 1876. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with you on the absurdity of some copyright laws, ngl. If it were up to me it would be 20 years after publication or life of the author. (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So at the end of the day, what do we do, @Buidhe and Nikkimaria:? Do I need to remove the image? If it could in theory still be copyrighted, do I have to use fair use? This is the last outstanding issue I see precluding this FAC passing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Islandora_16068-Hope_Valley_engine_house_OBJ.jpg is tagged as requiring restoration. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else added that tag unilaterally after I uploaded the image. I don't think it's really in need of restoration, it's not a perfect image but you can clearly see the subject (the engine house). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings, Buidhe, and Nikkimaria: - what is the status of the image situations? Hog Farm Talk 20:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Wood_River_Branch_Wincheck.jpg is still missing a US tag. If we can be reasonably certain that 2018 was indeed the first publication, we can use an unpublished tag - but I'm not clear on how certain we are on that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What we know for certain is the image was created at least 127 years ago. I am going to lose my mind if we seriously can't get a single freely-licensed photo of a locomotive from a railroad which operated from 1874 to 1947. I can't definitively prove it wasn't published before 2018, however. It's very difficult to try and prove a negative, but I find it very unlikely this image could still be subject to copyright 127+ years after creation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, does that address your concern? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We still need some kind of tagging added for this to be addressed. If there is reasonable certainty (appreciating that we can't prove a negative), then the tag suggested above should be used. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tag added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose


Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lee Vilenski:, just reminding you about this review. I know you're working on your own FAC as well, so no rush. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cyclonebiskit[edit]

Placeholder for future review. This kind of article is outside my wheelhouse so some of my comments will WP:AGF on styling and information. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Made a minor correction per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • owner of a grain mill that was the line's biggest customer. – is this referring to the mill or the business owner? If the latter it should be whom not that
    Referring to the mill, which by the end provided 85% to 90% of the line's traffic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little of the line remains today. – A specific date is strongly preferred per MOS:RELTIME. The last year mentioned in the body is 2017.
    2017 is the date Karr published the second edition of his book. Kennedy published her book in 2018, so I will use that as it's more recent by a year. I'll make the change later today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've stopped being lazy and now actually done this. I also noted that the most recent RIDOT State Rail Plan indicates part of the right-of-way is now used for streets. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formation and construction
  • Residents in the Hope Valley area first asked the Stonington – are you referring to "the Stonington" as a company? I didn't see mention of a company/operator up to this point. You seem to go back and forth referring to "the Stonington" as the line and an entity throughout the article.
    I can see why it might be confusing, but "the Stonington" and "the Stonington Line" were the two names commonly used for the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad, both as a line and as an entity. I modified an early sentence to read "Southern Rhode Island's first railroad was the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad (commonly known as the Stonington Line or simply the Stonington), which opened between Providence and Stonington, Connecticut, in 1837, connecting to New York City via steamboat." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early operations
  • While upon opening the line quickly began to show a significant operating profit... – The wording feels a bit clunky. Maybe change part of it to "...the line quickly showed a significant..."
    I agree, rewrote this as "The line quickly began to show a significant operating profit, but this was all but eliminated by interest payments on the $57,000 of bonds, totaling $4,000 annually." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Waltrus years
  • He recalled one instance when he gave a New Haven Railroad executive intent on abandoning the line "some doughnuts, a glass of milk, and let him talk to my mother ... we decided not to abandon it". – The second half of the quote doesn't flow with the first part. I'd suggest rewording to not have it be part of the quote.
    I've taken out the second part of the quote and instead paraphrased. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wood River Branch Railroad was temporarily placed under the control of the United States Railroad Administration with the rest of the nation's railroads in 1917 – Is there a reason why this happened? I'm guessing it's due to World War 1 but this needs to be made more clear if so.
    Yep, the World War I nationalization of the railroads was because the private companies could not cope with the major increase in traffic. Explicitly stated as much in the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
End of passenger operations
  • The floods mentioned can be linked to Great Vermont Flood of 1927 (which itself requires a lot of work). I found a USGS report that provides an overview that could be of use, it's not necessary though.
    The problem is that article only discusses Vermont, but it was clearly a region-wide event (I ran into this previously for a different flood and had to create 1936 Northeastern United States flood because no central article existed). I'd much prefer linking to a similar article for this flood event, linking to the Vermont one will confuse readers. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and also asked Richmond and Hopkinton to cancel the railroad's taxes if it could be reopened. – Is Richmond and Hopkinton a company, rail line, two people, or two towns? I'm assuming towns based on later text but it should be made clear here.
    Your assumption is correct, and I've made it clearer in the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk)
  • ...the Plymouth locomotive (numbered A100)... – is this the gas locomotive leased by New Haven?
    Owned by the New Haven. The Wood River Branch couldn't afford to buy it, so the New Haven bought it for them and leased it to the Branch. That's why it was taken back when the railroad closed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Demise and legacy
  • ...which paid the company $26,558,75 for the right to salvage the line... – I'm assuming the typo that needs fixing is for $26,558.75 and not $26,558,750?
    Yes, typo on my part. Fixed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little of the Wood River Branch Railroad remains. Portions of its right-of-way remain extant as of 2017... – restructure to specify the year first before describing its state per WP:RELTIME
    Reworked, the paragraph now reads "Portions of the railroad's right-of-way remain extant in the form of a trail as of 2018, and the abutments and a pier from a Wood River Branch Railroad bridge remain in the Wood River. Some segments of the right-of-way have been reused for streets. A handful of preserved mill buildings that were once railroad customers survive as of 2017." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Locomotives
  • Originally built in 1872, by 1898 Wincheck was irreparable. – was this from wear and tear or accidents?
    Will take a closer look at Kennedy later today, but likely wear and tear; Wincheck was not new when the railroad acquired it. The Hope Valley Advertiser says that in 1898 Wincheck was "in a state of innocuous disuetude, and fit for the scrap heap, these many months" [3]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now clarified; Kennedy writes that Wincheck was retired in 1896 when it was inspected and found too worn out to keep running, due to wear and tear. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section only details five locomotives but indicates there were ten. I also don't see mention of the A100/1872.
    The funny thing is the numbers weren't consecutive and some were skipped. Cinderella was 6, and then became 9 (allegedly the number was repainted upside down by a painter who had a reference that was also upside down). Gardner Nichols was 1, Wincheck was 2, and Polly was 5. 3, 4, 7, and 8 were never assigned to any locomotives. From 1919 until the 1927 flood the New Haven routinely assigned several different 4-4-0 locomotives it owned to the line as well, with numbers in the 1500 to 1700 range. I will add a paragraph for the Plymouth locomotive today with some details I didn't want to include in the main section of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I made use of the notelist to point out to the reader that some locomotive numbers were skipped. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Station listing
  • I went ahead and reformatted the table to adhere to WP:MOS. I swapped the distance and station listing to improve contextual understanding of the table.
    No objections on my part. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my initial comments on the article. It was a fun read. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit: Thanks again for the review, I believe I've addressed all comments. Let me know if you have any further questions or comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the changes address my concerns and I'm happy to support. Great work here. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source and general review (Support)[edit]

I have received scans of the three books from TAOT via email and will be doing some source spotchecks, as the article is almost entirely cited to offline sources. I am also doing a full review on talk and expect to support. Nikkimaria might you glance at the citation formatting? I am curious as to whether some of the lesser known newspapers (eg The Day), published via google books, need to have location specified. Also, Trainsandotherthings, is The Windsor Daily Star the Windsor Star from Ontario? I ask because there is a Windsor in CT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Day probably should have its location specified if I forgot to do so. My rule is to specify the location if it's not in the title (so no location for Hope Valley Advertiser for instance, because duh). Windsor Daily Star is from Ontario; Roy Rawlings became a press sensation with his $301 railroad and the story was picked up across eastern North America. Believe I've added all the necessary location parameters now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three book sources, I have checked all text cited to Heppner and Karr, and a sampling of pages from Kennedy (1, 38–39, and 99–104). No significant sourcing issues found (too-close paraphrasing, failed verification, OR, or source-to-text integrity problems); the article uses sources appropriately. Still working on a few prose issues and still anticipate supporting once prose nitpicks are ironed out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The gauge doesn't appear to be sourced anywhere
    I knew this would come up. The entire U.S. rail system with very few exceptions has been standard gauge for over 150 years. It's hard to cite because most sources just assume this is common knowledge, but I added a citation to Poor's manual which states the gauge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links, but if you are going to include them you should do so consistently
    All retrieval dates for Google Books links have been removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN20 has a typo

Support from PMC[edit]

Putting myself down to comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there's been some expansion since the GA review, so going through again from the top.

  • Tweaked one sentence in the lead to be less wordy and placed an "as of" template
    No objections on my part. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history with the mill owners feels a bit backwards to me. First we say that the arrival of rail transport allowed major growth in mills, then we say that land transport was expensive, then they decide to have a railroad. Which came first? It might make more sense to establish 1) mills are a big industry in the area, 2) road transport is pricey 3) let's get a railroad 4) wow that's great for business and now we're even bigger.
    When I say the arrival of rail transport, I'm not referring to the Wood River Branch Railroad, but the Stonington Line. The Stonington's route was close to the shoreline (and parallel to the Pawcatuck River), so while mills on the Pawcatuck could bring their cargo right to the nearest train station without much trouble, mills farther inland had to get their cargo to the railroad by wagon. The completion of the NYP&B led to a boom in textile mills, now that they had access to the major market of New York City. But Richmond and Hopkinton had very poor roads for many years, so for mills in that area, even just getting to the existing railroad was difficult. Open to suggestions on how to convey this better. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, okay. Maybe something close to what you've said here, distinguishing the Stonington prosperty from the Wood River people. Like... (off the cuff sans referencing) "The arrival of the Stonington allowed mills with access to it to prosper. Mills farther away had to use poorly-maintained roads to access the Stonington, increasing their costs significantly. Local residents realized that a railroad would solve this problem."
  • "the company's terminal" up until this point you've been calling it a terminus. Is this a typo or just an alternate term?
    Presumably an alternate term, but I've changed it to terminus for consistency. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who estimated repairs would cost $5,000" - everything else gets converted, why not this?
    Conversion added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Note 1] is placed after a ref, but [Note 2] is before refs. It should be consistent one way or another.
    Made consistent. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love all the detail about Rawlings treating the railroad like a lark. Bribery by blueberry!
    After all the inflation templates there had to be some lighter reading! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't fight you on this but I think Rawlings' technical profit could be in the body rather than in a footnote
    It's in a note to avoid overloading the prose with too many inflation conversions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much it at this point, I think other reviewers have been quite thorough so most potential issues have been ironed out already. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a response to the larger comment above, but even at this stage I'm satisfied enough to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • Cite 7 has a p./pp. error.
  • Any reason why Poor (1882) is missing both an OCLC and a publisher location?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the p./pp error in cite 7. I have no idea why the OCLC matters for a freely accessible PDF from 1882, but I have added it regardless along with the place of publication (New York). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wood_River_Branch_Railroad/archive1&oldid=1155841094"