Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Narragansett Pier Railroad/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Narragansett Pier Railroad

[edit]

Narragansett Pier Railroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 28 July 2024, 02:42 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an 8-mile-long railroad in Rhode Island with a surprisingly long and storied history. It ran from 1876 to 1981 and exists today as the William C. O'Neill Bike Path. The article recently passed GA, and with the help of a book on the railroad I've been able to expand it to the point I believe it is ready for FAC. It's been over a year since my last nomination, so forgive me if I am a little rusty. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Nn_Narragansett_Pier_Railroad._Steam_locomotive_on_steel_bridge.jpg: when and where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Ditto File:NPRR_No_1_'Narragansett'_built_by_Mason_in_1876_and_used_until_about_1891.jpg
    These were uploaded by an editor who is, to put it bluntly, not competent (I removed a swath of text they added to the article which was basically copied from online). They've uploaded all sorts of photos like this that they found online and just assumed were public domain without any investigation. The photo of locomotive 1 is also found in the Edward J. Ozog collection: [1]. The other image can be replaced with a variety of alternatives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced the first photo with a new one from the Ozog collection, and replaced the other photo with the properly licensed version. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned at Template:Did you know nominations/Narragansett Pier Railroad, I suspect that the CC-BY-SA tags on the Ozog photos are bogus. For example, https://provlibdigital.org/islandora/object/VM021_231. For sure, the original photo wasn't released under that license since CC didn't exist then. If the photo was taken in 1934, it's unlikely to meet any of the PD criteria. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the long delay in response - I've gone through a difficult move, started a new job, and had my car die on me in the past week. I'm not really sure how to respond to that - the end result of what you're proposing is to delete half the photos from the article (though [2] may be ok as a postcard which was therefore published). I don't have much in the way of further information on these photos, other that most were published in A Short Haul to the Bay in 1969. I would attempt to keep some of these photos as fair use if they are deleted, because it would be gutting the photos of the article to the point important information would be lost. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an ongoing discussion at [3] on Commons which may be relevant. Please feel free to bring your concerns there so we can get some input. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rowland_Gibson_Hazard_by_Jean_Paul_Selinger_1880.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published?
    Link opens just fine for me [4], this was created by an artist in Peace Dale, Rhode Island in 1880 and given to Brown University in 1881. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, when was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to [5], Brown has been collecting these portraits since the 1800s. The portrait collection has been exhibited online by Brown's Center for Digital Scholarship. The portraits are physically located across the university in various buildings and libraries. Per Commons, I am unclear on if the original exhibiting of the portraits in university buildings counts as the publication date, or the later (appears to be around 2003) online hosting does. That said, I think we have to be realistic that a portrait completed in 1880 is unlikely to still be protected by copyright. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RoySmith

[edit]

Just some comments for now.

  • The entire text of the main body is under "History". I'd eliminate that as a top-level section and move all of the sub-sections up one level.
    Yeah, this is something I'm often guilty of. I will rework the headers by moving them up as suggested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit to having a penchant for short leads, but in this case MOS:LEADLENGTH agrees with me. The main body is about 4200 words, which suggests 2-3 paragraphs. Some suggestions for things that can be cut, but these are just a few examples. I'll leave it to you to see what else can be trimmed:
    • "chiefly Rowland G. Hazard", for a summary, no need to go into this level of detail
    • "Peace Dale and Wakefield" it's enough to just say "textile mills", no need to specify the towns they were in for this summary.
    • "absorbed by the Hazards", of course they absorbed it, they owned a thing that was losing money, who else was going to absorb the loss?
    • "The Hazards also operated a connecting steamboat service to Newport." This article is about the railroad, so that's not essential for a summary.
    In progress, I removed "chiefly Rowland G. Hazard" as suggested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • member of the prominent Hazard family, suggest "... Hazard family of Rhode Island".
    Sure, addition made. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • inherited a mill I'm guessing that means textile mill, but only because I know a bit about New England history. You should specify what type of mill. Oh, yeah, you say so in the next sentence, but still better to add one word up front to keep the reader from wondering.
    Good point, changed accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hazards at first focused on Are you talking here about the father or the sons?
    The Hazard family had a very annoying habit of naming one person "Rowland Hazard", his son "Rowland Gibson Hazard", and his son "Rowland Hazard". According to Henwood, the Hazards we are concerned with are Rowland Gibson Hazard, founder of the railroad, and his brother Isaac Peace Hazard. Rowland Hazard, founder of the mills, retired in 1819 according to Henwood, but Heppner says the brothers inherited the mill from him in the late 1820s. Trying to piece together the truth here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel your pain. When I wrote Margaret Sibella Brown, I discovered that the family seemed to name every newborn girl some variation on Sibella for many generations. I guess when you've got a name that works, you just stick with it :-) RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but focused exclusively on rephrase to avoid repetitive use of "focused"
    Reworded as "shifted to". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • destroyed the factory and necessitated rebuilding If the factory was destroyed, then it's obvious that it was necessary to rebuild if they were going to continue the business. On the other hand, it wasn't really necessary; they could have just sold the land for another use and not rebuilt at all. So some clarification would help here.
    They made a choice to rebuild and to take the opportunity afforded by this to change their product line. I've gathered from elsewhere that a major incident where Rowland G. Hazard intervened in favor of a free black man from Newport being held falsely as an escaped slave in Louisiana, and secured the release of over 100 others in similar situations. He also was active with the Republican Party once that came into being. I redid the sentences here. this source draws a direct link between Hazard's activities and the change in business as well, but dates the change to 1849. Not sure which is correct. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still having trouble with this section. When you say "had begun to harm the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states" are you saying that the south in general was buying fewer cotton products, or that southern buyers were specifically not buying from the Hazards as a political protest/boycott? I'm guessing the later, in which case, how about something like:

    Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies had begun to harm his ability to sell cotton products in the slaveholding southern states, as southern buyers turned to other suppliers. This led the brothers to switch to manufacturing high-quality wool products which they could sell into more favorable markets.

    I'm guessing that wool was more popular in the north, where it was colder so people needed fabrics from which they could make warmer clothes? Be that as it may, I'm still thinking you want a paragraph break here. One paragraph would talk about their choice of products in response to market pressures: moving away from cotton to avoid the (I'm assuming) boycott issues, and separately moving from low-grade woolens to higher-grade woolens because (I'm assuming) that was more profitable. And then, in a second paragraph, talk about the engineering factors; switching to a different power source (steam vs water) and the issues that arose from that having to do with transporting coal for the steam boilers. RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies harmed the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states this is an abrupt change of topic. What does this have to do with what comes before (the fire and rebuilding) or after (the re-powering to use steam)? Seems like it belongs in another section somewhere.
    The significance of this, according to Heppner, was a shift in products from lower quality cottons, wools, and linens to woolen yarns of high quality. The transition from water power to steam power took place shortly afterwards, leading to a need for coal (imported by ship from mid-Atlantic ports like Philadelphia, as Rhode Island had little in the way of coal). The mills being several miles from the port at Narragansett Pier made getting the coal there a problem, as there were no trucks back then. This was one of the reasons the Hazards built the railroad. Heppner does tend to go into what some might call off topic or too much exposition, in that he tried to make a book enjoyable both for experts with the subject matter and the general reader, so maybe some of this detail can be trimmed from the article. The key point is that when the mills switched to steam power it provided impetus for a railroad to get the coal from the port to the mills. Henwood also mentions Rowland G. Hazard as an abolitionist but doesn't link that to the railroad directly. He does mention Rowland G.'s investments in the building of the Union Pacific Railroad which I appear to have neglected to add to the article previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • neither efficient or cheap for the mill drop "for the mill". For whom else would the efficiency or cost be an issue? Also, I suppose this is a style preference, but saying "inefficient and expensive" seems more straight forward. Taking that one step further, being inefficient implies extra cost, so maybe all that could be reduced to just "was expensive".
    I reworded as "The boilers required coal, imported to the coastal town of Narragansett Pier four miles (6.4 km) southeast by ships and then loaded on wagons and brought to the mills by wagons, a process costly in both time and money." Henwood mentions the coal could be bought cheaply from Philadelphia and imported by schooner, but a railroad was needed to move the coal cheaply and quickly from the docks to the mills. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (commonly known as the Stonington Line, for its western terminus in Stonington, Connecticut) This is a long and complicated sentence. I'd leave this parenthetical out completely, as knowing it doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of this article's subject.
    I can definitely remove most of the parenthetical, but I've been told that if I'm going to use an alternate name (and the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad was almost universally known as the Stonington Line) that name needs to be introduced. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • hampered the mill's ability In the lead, you talk about two mills (Peace Dale and Wakefield), but here you say there's just one. That needs to be sorted out.
    That sentence in the lead is one of the only sentences remaining from before I rewrote the article. While Karr says mills in Peace Dale and Wakefield, Heppner and Henwood concur that the Hazards' mills were in Peace Dale, though Henwood states mills were also present in nearby Wakefield (the two villages are so close together you can walk from one to the other in less than half an hour). He writes "By mid-century, the textile industry had developed and was centered in the villages of Peace Dale and nearby Wakefield. The Peace Dale Manufacturing Company, controlled by the Hazard family, dominated the economic life of the community". The driving force for building the railroad was the Hazard family mills, but they certainly wouldn't turn away other paying freight customers. I'm going to change the lead to just discuss the Hazard family mills in Peace Dale. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elisha R. Potter provided an additional $15,000 in funding, use {{inflation}} (here and elsewhere)
    Done, as mentioned below. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • when the stockholders held a meeting on January 26, 1876, I'd say "subsequent meeting". Yes, you can work out from the dates that this isn't the same meeting referred to earlier, but this'll make it more obvious. Stopping to figure out the chronology interrupts the reader's flow, so save them the effort.
    Modified accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Stonington Line also agreed to subscribe $15,000 towards the line's construction between 1875 and 1876. More fuzzy chronology. After you talk about a meeting in 1876, you back up to talk about an agreement in 1875. It's also not immediately clear what "the line" refers to. The Stonington Line or the proposed Narragansett Pier line?
    This is sourced to the Stonington Line's annual report dated October 1876 [7]. The directors wrote "In accordance with the policy heretofore pursued, of aiding to a moderate extent in the construction of Branch Roads likely to increase the business of this Company, $15,000 has been invested in the capital stock of the Narragansett Pier Railroad, at par." The report is "for the 13 months ending 30th September, 1876" making it unclear which year the investment was made exactly. This made the Stonington Line the biggest stockholder besides members of the Hazard family. Open to suggestions on how to word this better. Perhaps we drop "between 1875 and 1876" since the investment had to have been made before the line opened and that should be fairly clear to the reader. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded as "The Stonington Line also agreed to subscribe $15,000 towards the line's construction in hopes that the opening of the new railroad would provide it with more business." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to (politely) press you on using {{inflation}}. For stuff that happened 150-ish years ago, our readers won't have a feel for whether $15,000 is a lot, an astronomical lot, or something in between. RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is on my to-do list. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done, except for the sentence in the Great Depression section where four dollar amounts are called out. I think adding the inflation templates 4 times in a row would be very unwieldy for reading. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable, although maybe just convert the first one in the sentence? BTW, take a look at the markup in American Bank Note Company Printing Plant where I got it to generate a less verbose version, for example $10 million ($339 million in 2023). I think I've settled on using the default "equivalant to" version the first time in an article, then the shorter version after that. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A locomotive was purchased from the Mason Machine Works... this is an overly complex sentence. The inclusion of a multiple-sentence quote makes it particularly difficult to parse. Also, when was the purchase? And what's a "flag stave"?
    Flag staves allow for the mounting of flags on a locomotive like this. They were an optional extra Rowland G. Hazard had no right to demand when he was paying a rock bottom price for the locomotive. The locomotive was ordered in May 1876 and arrived in June, both of which I have clarified in the text. I've broken up the sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(this takes me to the end of "Construction" in Special:Permalink/1230479828. I'll come back later.

(picking up from the start of "Operation by the Hazard Family" in Special:Permalink/1230938022)

(done with everything through the end of "Second period of Hazard Family operations") (picking up with "American Associates ownership" in Special:Permalink/1231293569)

  • at a cost of $25,000, saying "for" would be simpler (thinking lovingly of my copy of Strunk and White).
  • Actually, I'd refactor these two sentences into "American Associates purchased the railroad from the Hazard family in April 1946 at a cost of $25,000.[2][59] American was the family trust of Royal Little who was also the founder and owner of Textron, then a textiles company."
  • Passenger service was subsequently officially terminated at the end of that year Why "officially"? That makes me think that service continued in some unofficial capacity. Also, drop "subsequently" that's implicit in "at the end of that year".
    The authorization to terminate passenger service didn't come from the RI Public Utilities Commission until the end of the year, and as a common carrier the railroad couldn't just decide not to carry them on its own. The few remaining passengers were carried either in taxis or the railroad superintendent's car from June until the railroad received permission to end passenger service. De facto, there were no passenger trains run after June 1952. Unlike the Wood River Branch Railroad, I don't see any indication passengers were carried on trains informally after this point (that is, until Hanold enters the picture later). Added to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With passenger service gone, only minimal freight traffic was carried to and from Narragansett Pier I'm not understanding this sentence. It seems to imply that the ending of passenger service was the cause of the decreased freight traffic.
    The intended message is that passenger service was pretty much all that went to Narragansett Pier. Hanold says the company average 3 inbound freight cars a year there, and the higher outbound total of 51 carloads over the last 5 years was only due to a military base being decommissioned and the military shipping out a bunch of their equipment by rail. Added more detail about this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's it from me for a first pass.

I think there's a few left. I am dealing with a difficult situation irl still (I don't have a car and am working to get a new one) and that has greatly limited my editing time. I was hoping to have that dealt with by now but it's taking longer than I'd like. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update, happy to report that my IRL circumstances have improved as I have a car finally. I should be much more active in the coming week and hopefully address most if not all of the remaining reviewer comments. Thank you all for your patience. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: The article should be ready for you to take a second look now. The only thing I'd say is outstanding is the lead section, but given Dugan Murphy below supports the lead section as is (and I agree with him personally) I'm reluctant to cut much more from it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer on the lead length. The only thing I'm still going to push on is the bit in "Background and formation" about the abolitionist sympathies. What you've got now is awkward. I've suggested one way in my comments above that it might get reworked, but I'm not wedded to that. I do think this needs some kind of reworking to make it all flow better. RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at how I reworded the section. I discovered a history of southern Rhode Island which filled in some gaps. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's an improvement. Support. I'm not really a railfan, but I still found this a fun and interesting article. RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source check from PMC

[edit]

Putting myself down for a source check. If I let it go longer than a week, ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this relies heavily on offline sources, let me know if you need me to send you any excerpts from the sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: poke. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies!

Nitpicks
  • Poor's Manual is more fully titled "Poor's Manual of the Railroads of the United States". I would also throw in the volume number (37) since that's readily available.
  • Setting over a dozen citations to Railroads of Rhode Island across a page range of pp. 126–133, 155–157 seems unfair to the reader, especially when you use sfns for Henwood, who is also cited throughout.
  • Karr is also a book with a page range reused several time, but I would call that less egregious because the whole thing only uses a 3-page range
  • Utterly a prose nitpick in the middle of my source review, but "compelled by complaints to reduce its passenger fares in 1901, though passengers continued to complain" - complaint/complain in the same sentence feels repetitive.
  • That's actually it, I didn't find much formatting to snark about
  • I did clarify in the caption of the legacy image that it's a replica station, feel free to revert if I misunderstood
Spot checks

Not required but doing anyway to be extra. Performed basically at random from what seemed interesting or was accessible.

  • Ref 1 good
  • I don't have full access to Heppner, but information checked through Google snippets didn't turn up any issues
  • Ref 18 good
  • Ref 20 was annoying to find on the page, but checks out
  • Refs 27, 28, 29 all good
  • Refs 33, 34, 36, 37 also good - I've asked to look at ref 35 mainly since I'm already doing this paragraph Recieved and checks out.
  • Ref 50 good, access via TWL - might be nice to have a link to the ProQuest version, since it's "via" ProQuest, I had to go looking myself :P
  • Ref 57 good
  • Ref 62 I can't access but the info is supported by Heppner even though it's not cited here (was looking at Heppner citation for Wakefield Branch Company buying a locomotive and it's nearby in Heppner)

I'm satisfied by the source formatting. Spot checks turned up no issues with either accuracy or copyvio. Sources used are appropriately high-quality; old newspaper sources are used judiciously to support non-contentious statements or reportage as it was stated at the time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I'll read through the article and write out some comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (not a source check)

  • It appears that the last name of the author of the book in the references list is Henwood, and his middle initials are N. J. The way it is written out, it looks like "N. J. Henwood" is his last name. I recommend moving the initials to the first name parameter. That would of course mean editing all the SFN citations to match.
    You are absolutely right, and I've modified the citations accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about moving the Heppner reference listing to the General references section and using more page-specific inline citations to it, as you do with the Henwood book?
    Will do. This became an issue because I expanded the page range when I added information on the Sea View Railroad, which is in a later chapter. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now complete. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall structure

  • According to MOS:ORDER, the External links section should be last.
    Corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Steamship operations section a subsection of the Peak of prosperity section rather than at the same hierarchical level?
    Because subheading 2 and subheading 3 look very similar. Corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Legacy section a subsection of the Later owners section rather than at the same hierarchical level?
    I felt weird about having a section at the same level with only a few sentences, but if consensus is making this a full section header is the way to go I'm fine with that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the See also section helpful to the reader?
    The intent was to link the other Rhode Island shortlines, most of which have long histories like this one. I've debated making a good topic on these since all 5 entries are GA or higher. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe this is just me, but I would prefer to see the References section changed to "Citations" and the General references section changed to "References". I'm saying that because I've seen "General references" used for lower-quality articles that acknowledge generally where the information came from but lack inline citations.
    I know what you mean, and was struggling on the right wording to convey this. I like your solution and have adopted it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Template:Rhode Island railroads included in the article if it does not link this article?
    Because of the "see also: former carriers in Rhode Island", but I have no strong attachment to its presence and would be ok with removing it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else

  • The link in the External links section is dead.
    The URL just moved, but I decided to remove the link entirely as I'm not sure it satisfies the external link guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend a Wikilink to Rowland G. Hazard from his portrait caption.
  • Same for the town name in the Narragansett Pier birds eye view.
    Both above items done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • necessitated rebuilding; Rowland G. Hazard's strong – I don't see a need for this to be one sentence.
    Made moot by changes to the writing in this section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies harmed the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states. Is that because anti-abolitionists boycotted Hazard's products?
    This played a part, yes. I made substantial changes to this area in response to RoySmith's comments above which hopefully make this clearer for you as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend changing "slaveholding southern states" to "slave states" and Wikilinking slave state. That is, in case that sentence is rewritten to take the focus away from slave states to people within them who may have been boycotting Hazard's products.
    As part of the changes I mention just above in the previous item, I removed the phrase "slaveholding southern states". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • not long after the rebuild steam power started to be used instead – This phrase needs a comma after "rebuild", but I recommend this rewording instead: "it converted to steam power shortly after the rebuild".
    This has been substantially rewritten based on a new source I found. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that starts The boilers required coal is a bit unwieldy. I think it would be easier to read if broken up. Also, the "or" should be "nor". If kept as one sentence, you could change wagons, which was neither efficient or cheap for the mill. to "wagons; this was neither efficient nor cheap for the mill."
    Broken into two sentences and reworded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that starts Narragansett Pier itself was growing is also unwieldy.
    Made moot by a rewriting of this paragraph. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narragansett Pier itself was growing – "itself" is unnecessary.
    Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the nearest rail line being on the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad – "on" should be removed.
    Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution for all of these issues was – according to whom?
    Rowland G. Hazard, who'd learned plenty about railroads as a financer of the Union Pacific Railroad. This is clearer in the text now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • approval for a new charter in 1868 – was there an old charter?
    No, this was the first charter, so I removed "new".
  • The charter was approved in 1868, and the survey was completed "promptly" afterward, but construction couldn't start because of a financial panic that didn't start until 5 years later? Is it that "promptly" means 5+ years or neither party had ever built a railroad before implies a 5-year delay?
    The Hazards struggled to raise funding for the railroad. The Stonington Line's $15,000 didn't come until 1875/6. Beyond the Hazard family, there wasn't really anyone in the area at that time with the money to drop on financing a new railroad beyond small purchases of shares by local residents and businesses. Henwood says "There was a long struggle to raise money, and many disappointing setbacks were encountered. As a result of the Panic of 1873, the financial climate grew increasingly chilly for new enterprises." I have made this more explicit in the text. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • could count on sounds a little too far off WP:NPOV for my taste.
    I don't understand the issue. How is this related to NPOV? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two uses of Rowland G. Hazard's full name in the Construction section would read better as just "Hazard". By that point, there haven't been any mentions of other Hazards for a while.
  • I think late 1874 should be hyphenated.

Still reading through the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • the new railroad would provide more business for the Stonington Line? Or for the surrounding community?
    For the Stonington Line, which is clearer in the prose now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is tender?
    Tender (rail), which is linked now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see a couple of contextual words to help the reader understand what a flag stand/stave is. Like, "Disappointed that he would be unable to fly flags from the front of the train, Hazard complained: 'We do not find flag stands on the engine'".
    If you're going to press this point, I'd prefer an interwiki link to the entry on Wiktionary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing William Mason is the owner of Mason Machine works. It would help the reader to introduce him that way.
    He was indeed, and this is now made clear in the text. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "personally" is necessary.
    The sources emphasize that Mason, very much busy running an entire manufacturing company, was so peeved by Hazard that he took time out of his day to write a personal response lambasting his demands. Henwood says "On July 24th, the exasperated builder took time to reply to this customer who had purchased the grand total of one locomotive at a minimum price and then demanded extra frills", and Heppner states this was the culmination of multiple letters sent to Mason by Hazard. For that reason, I think it is necessary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to Hazard stating should be "reply to Hazard, stating:".
  • To conform to MOS:ELLIPSIS:
    • Add {{nbsp}} before each ellipsis.
    • Since the first word following each ellipsis is the start of a new sentence, they both should be four periods, rather than three.
  • The exasperated Mason quote is a bit long. I think it would be better to summarize most of it and only quote the interesting non-NPOV bits like "expensive and boyish".
    I removed "One pump is sufficient", which I felt was not very interesting compared to the "expensive and boyish" comment and Mason's pointed words about how the locomotive was the cheapest he had ever sold. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink rolling stock.
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add something to define side-dump car if you're going to use that term. You could Wikilink Side dump car in the hopes that it is someday expanded, but at this time, it is very unhelpful.
  • Culprit is poor word choice for maintaining NPOV.
    I believe this is an accurate reflection of the source, which has an entire section entitled "amateurs assemble a railroad" and repeatedly points out their last minute scrambles to address issues and ill preparation for the task of running a railroad. I think we need to remember that NPOV does not mean "no POV". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (despite Hazard hoping to open the line on July 1) – I don't think this needs to be in parentheses.
    Fair enough, parentheses removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation by the Hazard Family – "Family" should be lower case.
    Fixed, in several instances (turns out I made this mistake more than once). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially, four round trips were run daily for passengers, but demand quickly grew to the point this number was increased to six could be shorter and more straightforward: "The line initially ran four round trips per day, but demand quickly grew this number to six"
  • The sentence that starts Passenger trains connected mentions the Kingston connection twice, which seems unnecessary.
    Yeah, that sentence wasn't written very well. I've removed the second mention of the connection since it should be clear enough without it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • filled to the brim is a poor choice of phrase for maintaining NPOV.
    Respectfully disagree. It is accurate to the source and not an opinion. I am a proponent of encyclopedic writing and interesting writing, and don't see the two as being at odds. This is an encyclopedia written by humans for humans, and I do not see anything in NPOV that says writing such as this example is against policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ice was imported in trains for cooling during the summers – being a Maine historian familiar with the 19th-century New England ice industry, I take this to mean that ice shipped on this line was used for refrigeration and maybe air conditioning. If that's the case, I recommend making that more obvious.
    Yes, it was precisely that. I see how this might be interpreted as cooling the trains themselves, so I reworded. The sentence is now "ice was imported in trains for local use as a coolant during the summers" with "ice was imported" linked to ice trade. Since you're more familiar with this topic, let me know if this conveys the meaning properly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • was started could just be "started".
    I don't agree, I believe "was started" is the proper language as the act of starting was something done by the employees, not something the engine did by itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • necessary - passengers – that should be an en dash, not a hyphen.
    Oops, this is a very common mistake of mine, to the point I have an endash permanently placed at the very top of my userpage. Fixed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halfway through the Operation by the Hazard Family section, Narragansett Pier is being referred to as a resort town, but until then, the reader has only heard about the town's industrial concerns. I recommend adding a little bit to the Background section about the town's resort economy. Or at the very least, preface the first mention of Narragansett Pier of a resort town with something like "Narragansett Pier's tourism economy was also growing" or something like that.
    I apparently read your mind, because I only just read this now but added Narragansett Pier's potential as a coastal resort had been known to businessmen since the construction of its first hotel in 1856, but significant growth was held back by poor transportation links earlier today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • second locomotive used – I had to read this twice. The second locomotive was second-hand?
    Yes, their urgency for a second locomotive combined with limited funding meant they ended up with a used locomotive (originally built 1872) from the Providence and Worcester Railroad. Reworded as "purchased a used locomotive from the Providence and Worcester Railroad". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20,000 short tons (18,000 long tons; 18,000 t) of freight – What does this mean?
    20,000 tons is the weight of all the freight carried by the railroad in that year. This is a common way of quantifying the freight business handled. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikilink for "passenger train" comes late in the body. I recommend moving the link to the first use of that term, earlier in the body. I also recommend a piped link from "passenger business" in the lead.
  • its first dividend to its shareholders – the second "its" is unnecessary.
    Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "the Pier" refer to the Narragansett Pier or a pier within Narragansett Pier?
  • "The Pier" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. It should be if this is an abbreviation for the town name.
  • The Narragansett Pier Railroad was compelled by complaints to reduce its passenger fares in 1901, though passengers continued to complain that the railroad required long layover times for travelers connecting with trains to and from Providence. The two halves of this sentence don't seem as connected as the "though" connector makes it seem. Or am I missing something?
  • the trip to Narragansett Pier was only a matter of minutes – from where?
    From the other end of the line at Kingston Station. Given the context I believe this is sufficiently clear to the reader. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a map of the line you can include as an image?
    The article already has a map. Click on the "map" icon just above the infobox. I am not sure if I can covert the data from that map into an image. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The monopoly allegation was also made in 1898 by proponents of a new steamboat wharf in Narragansett Pier that would connect to Providence, who pointed to the railroad's high rates (at the time 50 cents between Kingston and Narragansett pier) and surcharges on coal shipments. I recommend rewording and probably splitting into more than one sentence. Reading this the first time, it looked like Providence pointed, though I understand it was the proponents who pointed.
    Split into two sentences, which hopefully makes the meaning clearer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was the steamboat wharf completed?
    1898 according to the source, and I've added this to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that starts The railroad signed an agreement is unwieldy. I recommend breaking it up.
  • directly adjacent – is "directly" necessary?
  • take a bus to reach it – Seems too early in the 20th century for a motor bus, but maybe more time has passed since 1902 than I think. Can you clarify?
    Heppner simply says "omnibus ride". The earliest motor buses date to the 1890s, but in this case he is almost certainly referring to a Horse-drawn omnibus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1879 which began – I believe a comma is necessary before "which".

Still reading. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • They found a buyer "They" are the Hazards, not the Pier, right?
  • They found a buyer in the New Haven, which under the control of J. P. Morgan was fearful of the Southern New England Railway and its plans to build a competing rail line in the area; were the Southern New England to buy the Narragansett Pier, it would have an outlet to Narragansett Bay. This sentence is unwieldy. Who is under Morgan's control? The buyer? How could Southern New England Railway buy the town of Narragansett Pier?
  • I think "small change" is a poor choice of phrase for maintaining NPOV.
  • Ditto "one-way track towards bankruptcy".
  • shareholders that distrusted should be "shareholders who distrusted".
  • not a good fit – according to whom?
  • I recommend changing Though it was never an intentional act, the Narragansett Pier Railroad's new owners neglected to "The Narragansett Pier Railroad's new owners unintentionally neglected". It's less wordy and, in my opinion, more aligned with NPOV.
  • The article starts using USRA without making clear what it is abbreviating.
    Oops, acronym is now introduced. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Haven, CT, should be Wikilinked from its first use, rather than where it currently is Wikilinked.
    It is linked at its first use. Other instances of the string "New Haven" are referring to the NYNH&H. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • which could not claim much importance in the war effort seems tacked onto its sentence without being that relevant to it.
  • How did the USRA cut passenger rail service and overwork the locomotives at the same time?
    By neglecting their maintenance.
  • I would argue that the "finally" in "finally failed" is unnecessary and leans away from NPOV.
    I don't understand what you mean. This is "finally" because there was a previous history of financial trouble. The "finally" makes it clear that this wasn't a spontaneous bankruptcy but the culmination of years of financial problems. That doesn't have anything to do with NPOV as I understand it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As part of the resolution of the Rhode Island Company's assets, the Narragansett Pier lease was cancelled in 1920; the USRA returned operations to the Hazard family on March 1, 1920. So the lease was canceled, then the Hazards took back control?
    This is because of the nationalization. The Sea View failed in 1919, but federal control didn't end until March 1, 1920, and the court cases dealing with the Rhode Island Company's assets concluded with the Narragansett Pier Railroad lease being cancelled before the end of federal control. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • already proven to be a maintenance headache just to get operational is a poor phrase choice for NPOV.
    I don't really agree, but nevertheless I have redone this section to give more detail on the issues with the railcar and removed this phrasing in the process. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • citing competition by cars and trucks – given the predominant use of car for rolling stock, I recommend replacing with "automobile".
    Yes, it's very annoying how car has multiple meanings. Switched accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Railbus is Wikilinked from the lead but nowhere else. I recommend Wikilinking the first use in the body and the only use in a photo caption.
    Done and done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a "train-mile" a real form of measurement in RR world? Is it different from a mile?
    Yes, a train-mile is a unit of measurement referring to one train traveling one mile. It is useful for cost purposes, as shown in this example. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • prompted an increase of over 10,000 passengers in one year, prompting – I recommend getting rid of either "prompted" or "prompting".
    Replaced one instance with "resulted in". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • nickname - "Micky-Dinks" - after – Those should be two en dashes, not hyphens.
    En dashes added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • was not ignorant of the role of automobiles is poor phrasing for NPOV.
    What part of this contradicts NPOV? NPOV does not mean that writing cannot be expressive, and the sentence is an accurate description of the state of affairs and a faithful representation of the views of the cited sources. Management knew that the automobile was a threat and decided "if you can't beat them, join them". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (in large part, this covered the route of the abandoned Sea View Railroad). I think this would read better as its own sentence outside parentheses.
    That's reasonable, changed as suggested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • spelled the end is not a great phrase for maintaining NPOV.
    I don't know what to say to this beyond I simply do not agree. Using language such as this doesn't have anything to do with POV, and your interpretation seems to be that any sort of remotely expressive language is disallowed. I do not believe that is how NPOV is intended, and have never faced such criticisms before in any of my GANs or FACs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To improve readability, I think which sat on valuable land in demand for commercial use should be set apart from the rest of the sentence with en dashes rather than commas.
    I agree, endashes added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • back from the brink is a poor choice of phrase for NPOV.
    Again, I strongly disagree. This is an accurate reflection of the circumstances. The company was close to shutting its doors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • business - namely the closure of local mills and increased use of automobiles - resumed should be en dashes, not hyphens.
    En dashes added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • year - the should be an en dash, not hyphen.
    En dash added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who said "its wooden-spoked wheels fouled every switch in the nearby tower"?
    Henwood. I struggled greatly with paraphrasing this particular sentence to the point I decided to use a quotation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family in "Hazard Family" is capitalized once, but appears elsewhere in lower case. It also appears upper case in headings twice, which should not be.
    Addressed in response to this further up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the behest of the State of Rhode Island, which was building a highway crossing the railroad right-of-way near Narragansett Pier, the now seldom-used segment beyond Wakefield was abandoned, shortening the line to approximately five miles (8.0 km) in length. Unfortunately for the state, by the time the Interstate Commerce Commission gave the railroad permission to abandon the segment, work on the bridge had progressed to the point it was cheaper to complete it than to abandon its construction. I don't understand what's happening here.
    The state asked the railroad to abandon the very infrequently used part of the line from Wakefield to Narragansett Pier so that a proposed highway crossing the route would no longer need a bridge. The railroad eventually obtained ICC approval, but by the time it came through work had already started on the bridge and it was now cheaper to simply finish the bridge than demolish what had been built and redo the highway to cross the former railroad alignment at grade. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the quote "liquified fish guts" come from?
    Heppner, but I rewrote some of this section and removed the quote in the process. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the railroad's "physical plant"?
    [8] Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1928-built and 1876-built: I think you can remove "-built".
  • New Haven is WP:DUPLINKed
    No it isn't, according to the current guidance at MOS:DUPLINK. This was a relatively recent change so I can understand why you might not know. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Penn Central?
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is railfans a real word?
    Yes? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Jersey Railroad it was needs a comma before "it".
    Comma added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire Legacy section should be rewritten to improve shelf life: has been converted to "was converted" and since 2010 terminates under a mile from Narragansett Pier to "in 2010 was extended to a mile outside Narragansett Pier". For the last two sentences, adding "as of 2007/2017" is appropriate because those publications cannot say what is standing today.

Almost done, I think. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

  • I'm of the opinion that everything in the infobox should be drawn from the article body. Can you add the track gauge to the body? I'm also not sure the 8-mile length shows up in the body. The reporting mark doesn't.
    The length was actually 8.5 miles, though officially reported as 8 in a number of sources. This has been corrected and both sourced and stated in the body. The reporting mark comes up as NAP in The Official Railway Equipment Register on Google books, though unfortunately only a snippet view is available. Nonetheless I have cited it as it shows enough to me that I can confirm the reporting mark is correct. I cannot conceive of any way to discuss a reporting mark in the body, and also disagree that the gauge needs to be explicitly discussed. Essentially every single railroad in North America has used standard gauge since the Civil War ended. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingston Station as well could use a comma before "as"
    That's reasonable, added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a blow the resort town never fully recovered from isn't great NPOV wording.
  • in 1936 the railroad could use a comma after "1936".
    Comma added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-rail operations; steam locomotives: I don't think the second part of that sentence relates enough to the first part to justify joining them with a semicolon.
    Split into two sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the lead should be reworded to preserve shelf life. Most of the right-of-way has been converted could be "In the 21st century, most of the right-of-way was converted". And using now operates is asking for it to become out of date.
    I don't see an issue with saying "most of the right-of-way has been converted". The trail isn't going anywhere, and the chances of it becoming a railroad ever again are infinitesimal sadly. I changed the wording of the last sentence to "along with a steam locomotive that has been restored to operation by the Everett Railroad". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Modified further as "Several railroad structures have been preserved, along with a steam locomotive that was restored to operating status in 2015 by the Everett Railroad." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Despite my long long list of comments, I think the prose is good enough to be FAC-worthy if all of those comments are addressed. Honestly, if I had it to do over again, I would say that this article should go back to peer review before writing out all those comments. Having done so, however, I think there's an opportunity to bring the article to FAC quality here. Earwig finds no likely plagiarism. It is certainly well-researched, assuming PMC's source check finds that the sources are all good and represent a comprehensive survey of the relevant sources. The article is certainly comprehensive in telling all the twists and turns in the railroad's history and I think the lead does a great job compressing all that detail into something that can be consumed quickly and easily. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeliness discussion

[edit]

@Trainsandotherthings: I see you have responded to some but not all of my comments. Once you feel they are all addressed, ping me like this and I will be happy to take another look at the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I have internet now and should be editing more steadily so I will work through your remaining comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsandotherthings, how are you getting on with responding to DM's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it. I converted one source to Sfn notation yesterday. Real life has gotten very busy. I didn't get home until 8 pm my time today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that real life happens, but one of the FAC rules is "Nominators are expected to make efforts to ... address objections promptly." Some reviewer comments have been outstanding for a month, which is not acceptable. You may wish to consider withdrawing the nomination and renominating it when you have more time. In any event, if all outstanding comments are not addressed within 48 hours the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that real life happens Clearly, you do not. In the past month I moved, started a new job, and had my car die on the side of the road in the middle of the night. These presented challenges I did not anticipate at the time of nomination. I had points where I went days without even having the opportunity to log into Wikipedia at all due to real life concerns, which take precedence over an online encyclopedia. Despite all of this, I have been consistently working over the past week to address comments. Dugan Murphy left an extremely long list of comments (I count one hundred and five!!!!) that I have dedicated hours of my time to addressing. I had to do additional research and find new sources in response to some of his comments and to improve the article. Do me a favor and archive this now. And when people ask why editors refuse to participate in FAC, maybe remember this moment. I certainly won't be back anytime soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Narragansett_Pier_Railroad/archive1&oldid=1236865314"