Jump to content

Talk:East Junction Branch

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

Source dump

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:East Junction Branch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TwoScars (talk · contribs) 16:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC) I will review this, although I will not be available on this Sunday and Monday. I have 30+ years of experience in the railroad industry. TwoScars (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Preliminary look

[edit]
Not officially part of GA review requirements, although this is another "thing" that people have always made me do for Military History review. I can fix these if you do not want to. Here is an example of Wikicode: [[Image:John Echols CSA.png|thumb|upright=0.5|right|John Echols|alt=Confederate officer with stars on his collar, dark hair and mustache]] TwoScars (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More later TwoScars (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  •  Done It is good for abbreviations for any railroad to be the reporting marks (if they existed at the time of the railroad). (Probably can get away with use P&W instead of PW, although railroaders may cringe.) In the first paragraph, it is not clear that P&W is the Providence and Worchester Railroad – something like what was done for B&P in the second paragraph would solve this.
    My sources invariably use P&W, so I will be sticking with that. I have introduced the abbreviation in the lead per your suggestion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done First paragraph is not real clear. Are there branches off of branches? Perhaps you should describe how the line is used now before you get into its history. Who actually operates on the line now? What parts? Is passenger/commuter service conducted on the line?
    I rewrote a bunch of the lead, let me know what you think. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The last sentence in paragraph four is odd. Maybe it could be reworded.
    I elected to remove it entirely, since the bridge is already linked in the infobox and it was proving more confusing than informative to mention in the lead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TwoScars (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks, and reads, much better now. Assuming any facts in the Lead are explained in the sections that follow. TwoScars (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
Does paragraph 3 describe how the line got the name East Junction Branch? TwoScars (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Karr actually calls it the "East Providence Branch" (unhelpful as there's a second rail line more widely known by that name) and Heppner simply states "it is now known as the East Junction Branch". It pretty clearly came from the point where it splits from the NEC being known as East Junction. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would—more important to those two states than the history of the East Junction Branch TwoScars (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to an explanatory note. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I was mislead by the text that says "The Seekonk Branch Railroad intended to use the B&P bridge to run its own trains into Providence, treating the route much like a toll road. However, the Massachusetts General Court refused to permit this, requiring Seekonk Branch Railroad trains be hauled by Boston and Providence Railroad locomotives into Providence." It is not until I read the citation that I realized that the B&P was against this, and the court (and B&P) thought that two operators on a single-line bridge would be unsafe. The court's solution was a good compromise that was safer but kept traffic moving. Maybe this could be beefed up in the text or with a simple footnote? TwoScars (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) TwoScars (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified that the B&P was opposed for safety reasons. To my knowledge the Seekonk Branch Railroad never actually operated, since having to switch locomotives before crossing the bridge eliminated any advantage over simply using B&P trains instead. The B&P absorbed the Seekonk Branch and used it as a short branch line, and my understanding is some of the right of way was used by the Providence, Warren and Bristol Railroad when they built their line in the 1850s. The Seekonk Branch was basically a short spur (half a mile at most) to the east bank of the Seekonk River and some port facilities; their idea was to ship freight across the bridge without having to undertake the expense of building a bridge; the B&P was understandably pissed at this idea considering building the first ever railroad in the state of RI (and a movable bridge that could hold trains before steel was even invented) back when train technology was in its infancy was not an easy task. There of course were no signals back then to permit safely running multiple trains over the same tracks. Apart from the one document cited there, most of the Seekonk Branch Railroad's history is likely lost. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History - Operations under Old Colony and New Haven

[edit]
  •  Done It is not clear how the East Junction Branch is affected in all this history.
    I don't follow. The Rumford station was moved, a second track was added, some grade crossings were grade separated, regular passenger trains were discontinued by 1914, and dedicated trains to Narragansett Park were introduced in 1937. The opening of the Crook Point bridge and East Side Tunnel added a new connection to the East Junction Branch. Those are all clear changes to the nature and operation of the branch. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not say what you said here as a first paragraph (only in chronological order)? Then you can follow with your detail afterwards. Here is some useful Wikicode (that you may already know): ({{Inflation|US|405000|1910|fmt=eq}}), {{convert|0.6|mi}} TwoScars (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another example: the second paragraph states some facts, but fails to connect them to the East Junction Branch, such as "The Crook Point Bascule Bridge along with the East Side Tunnel and a downtown viaduct were put into service on November 15, 1908." Your review-section wording above makes much more sense. "The opening of the Crook Point bridge and East Side Tunnel added a new connection to the East Junction Branch." Why not replace the text in the article with "The November 15, 1908, opening of the Crook Point bridge and East Side Tunnel added a new connection to the East Junction Branch." ?? TwoScars (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have added ", adding a new connection between the East Junction Branch and downtown Providence" That helps a lot—remember that you may know this rail line like "the back of your hand", but the reader may not be familiar with the area. TwoScars (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did "The electrification of the Providence, Warren & Bristol in 1900 increased the feasibility of a mile-long (1.6 km) tunnel under College Hill to provide a way of getting trains from the east bay to Union Station in the center of Providence and an alternate route to Boston." the electrification ultimately lead to the new connection? TwoScars (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before the Crook Point bridge was built, PW&B trains used the India Point bridge to reach Providence, as you can see here. When the new bridge and tunnel opened in 1908, this was a new connection to the East Junction Branch. You can still see the wye that was built to connect the bridge to the East Junction branch to this day. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told that this is not necessary for GA, although I would argue that it makes the article understandable to an appropriately broad audience. We always convert miles in Warfare Good Articles, but perhaps Wikiproject Trains does not have those standards. Anyway, it is nice to have—and the Wiki code is above if you want to improve your article. I would think you would want to do this. TwoScars (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, I try to always do this. I've been busier than normal irl but should get to the remaining comments today or tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary for GA, although I think using an "(equivalent to $x,xxx in 2022)" would add value to the article. TwoScars (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(see above comment on miles) TwoScars (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History – After the New Haven

[edit]
Karr would be better. TwoScars (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have added Karr, so I am OK with you leaving Belcher in too (although the security is a concern). TwoScars (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History – Current operations and route

[edit]
Glad to see citations. Will wait for rework. TwoScars (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was disappointed to see the Massachusetts State Rail Plan says nearly nothing about the line. I've added what I can from the Rhode Island State Rail Plan and Scott A. Hartley's 1994 article on the Providence and Worcester Railroad. I'm not sure the route description that was there before is needed considering the presence of the maps. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found some information in an older edition of the Rhode Island state rail plan [4] (see pages 53-55) but this is from 1993 so 21 years old. Unsure if the information here is worthy of inclusion (I do use a map from this source in the article already). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former stations

[edit]
  •  Done Needs citations
    The citations are included next to "milepost" in the top row. They support the names, mileposts, and comments. I feel it's excessive to repeat the citations en masse for every single entry in the table. The lack of any stations being preserved is hard to cite because we're trying to prove a negative, but page 317 of John H. Roy, Jr.'s A Field Guide to Southern New England Railroad Depots and Freight Houses includes a list of all preserved structures along B&P lines, and it does not have any entries for the East Junction Branch. I have used it to cite the statement that no stations are preserved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for now. TwoScars (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More checks

[edit]

I will do some more checking Monday, especially with more sources and better writing. Not sure if you already have this, but here is a Tool/Computer Program that will archive your web sites: https://iabot.wmcloud.org/index.php?page=runbotsingle

Sometimes the program does not work, or takes too long. Currently it Timed-out on a 71 KB page, so I'll try (on my sandbox) tomorrow. It takes awhile and the slow program is even slower if others are using it. By using the program (when it works), if the web site changes the reader can still see the original page. I always check the checkbox that says "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)". If you look at Bellaire Goblet Company, in the citations, you can see the results of the program archiving web sources. TwoScars (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ran fine just now. TwoScars (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done—passed. I still think you might want to archive the web links in your citations. TwoScars (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of citations

[edit]
All good except I don't see where it says anything in this particular newspaper article about the double-tracking mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The ICC citation does mention the double-tracking. Perhaps the first time "Hearing Announced" is used it should be combined with the ICC citation, but not the second. TwoScars (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citation added as requested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine now. An alternative way would be: <ref name="NewspaperAndICC">{{Cite news |date=October 27, 1912 |title=Hearing Announced |page=27 |work=The Sunday Tribune |location=Providence, Rhode Island |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=xz1hAAAAIBAJ&dq=east+providence+grade+crossing+elimination&pg=PA27&article_id=1732,6633620}}; {{Cite report |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KSQwAQAAMAAJ&dq=%22east+junction%22+branch+double+track&pg=PA5307 |title=Evidence Taken by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates by Carriers |last=Interstate Commerce Commission |date=December 21, 1910 |publisher=Government Printing Office |location=Washington |volume=9 |page=5307}}</ref> This combines the two sources into one citation. TwoScars (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done ICC 1910 - mentions dollar amount and double-tracking. TwoScars (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done New York, New Haven..... TwoScars (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "The end is near for East Providence's India Point Railroad Bridge to nowhere" Hard to tell is this newspaper article provides anything useful without knowing what the book provides. TwoScars (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Yankee Independence (Trains magazine) (Let ride). This is an example for why I prefer the Harvard-style for citations (not necessary for GA) The citation links to a great 9-page article about the P&W, but does not tell what page has the one simple fact that the citation is for. With the Harvard Style, the entire magazine article would be down in the References section (including magazine, web link, date of article, access date, author, and all pages for the article), while the citations section would say exactly which page is being used. TwoScars (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other checks

[edit]

Criteria

[edit]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Junction_Branch&oldid=1203334990"