Wikipedia

Talk:Cornwall Electric/Archive 1

< Talk:Cornwall Electric
Latest comment: 2 years ago by SL93 in topic Did you know nomination
Archive 1

Feedback from New Page Review process

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work!.

North8000 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt comments (part 1)

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was asked on my talk to look at this article. Some comments:

  • Some short, choppy sentences in the lede.
- Rewritten.
  • Is it "City of Cornwall" or "city of Cornwall"?
- Changed them all to the latter, and kept the one "City" when referring to the Corporation and the MoU.
  • I would shorten the long corporate names after the first use and there is no need for italicisation.
- Done.
  • From where did Stormont get its power? Hydroelectric? Was the source within city limits? Did this change over time? At what point I the energy generation become separate?
- Various sources, now included in the article.
  • You say "pro-hydro" and "anti-hydro". If the objection is to the company rather than the source of power, I would capitalise the H.
- Changed to pro-Hydro and anti-Hydro.
  • In the fifth paragraph of "History" it might be best to refer to "the company" or use its name every couple of sentences.
- History section rewritten.
  • "In 1987, Cornwall Street Railway Light and Power Company Limited, " Is this Cornwall Electric? If so say so. If you want to tell the reader it has a new name then say it was renamed, or was known by then as, or whatever is needed.
- Done.
  • In the description of the 1997 sale, it might be better to put the name of the purchaser in the first sentence rather than somewhat later on.
- New Ownership section.
  • "This allowed Cornwall residents, to have enough power to meet seventy-five percent of its electricity needs during the ice storm.[10]" The comma seems unneeded and it should be "their" electricity needs.
- Done.
  • "Fortis Inc. has roots in St. John's Newfoundland and Labrador," I don't know why you're avoiding the comma or using the full provincial name.
- Added the comma, removed "Labrador".
  • " Hydro-Québec.Hydro-Québec." ??
- Fixed.
  • There is no need to italicise quotations.
- All removed.
  • Why is the Glen Walter issue worth mentioning at some length? What is the source of the dispute? Money?
- This originally was all under a "Controversy" heading. I'll circle back on that one.
- Update: Removed the last sentence surrounding the local controversy.
In general, I found the history hard to follow. It may need to be written in a more narrative fashion. It seemed very episodic. Ping me when you want me to take another look and I'll be more prompt.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- History section rewritten.
  • Very constructive feedback. Will ping you when ready. Thank you! WILDSTARtalk 19:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Wehwalt, I adjusted the lead to better summarize the article. To address your "history" concern above, I added "Inception", a rewritten "History" section, new separation of the "Railway operations" and "Electricity operations", which I segmented further into a new "Early years", "Expansion", "Control", and expanded the "Power source", "Ownership", and the "Community involvemnent" sections. — WILDSTARtalk 16:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy comments

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

WildStar asked me to take a look at this page on my talk page to determine its suitability for a GA review. To get the bad news out early, I do not think it is ready for a GA review. Here are some of the issues that need fixing.

Inception

  • No citations in the entire inception section

History

  • This feels like it should be combined with the Inception section
  • Citations are pretty sparse
  • Lot of editorializing wording, such as "and would witness an event that would have historic significance in the development of the electrical industry in Canada." While the sentiment is clear, it's not encylopedic to use such subjective language; how are we determining "historic significance?"

Railway operations

  • Looks like it has good citations
  • The Cornwall Street Railway Company section is excessively detailed, especially considering that it never carried out its services
  • Editorialized language, such as "use of the service grew quickly"

Electricity operations

  • Citations, citations, citations
  • This narrative is too detailed and difficult to follow
  • A lot of excessive wording. Things such as "In October 1887, W.R. Hitchcock found himself in the precarious position of growing his business and having to borrow $5,000 dollars from the directors of Stormont Electric to pay his bills. He was unable to repay the loan within the ten months allotted to him, and under the terms of the loan agreement, he would forfeit all "his rights, privileges, property and effects in the electric light plant" to Stormont Electric." This could be more succinctly worded with something like "In October 1887, Hitchcock borrowed $5,000 from Stormont Electric, but lost his company ten months later when he defaulted on his loan"

Ownership

  • Citations look good. There are a few uncited areas.
  • Excessive wording is again an issue here

Regulations

  • This seems very out of place. I don't think this section tells much about the company

Community involvement

  • This section seems largely unnecessary. For a large company, "small" donations of $2,000 and $5,000, and the excessively detailed Bear-A-Thon aren't necessary to include in this page. While I commend this company on a personal level for its community outreach, it's not like the company as a whole is philanthropically focused.

In summary, improve citations, make the writing more encylopedic, and take a good look at what is necessary to tell the story of Cornwall Electric, and what are just details about the company. Good luck; let me know if you have any questions! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy, I did attempt to adhere to the six good article criteria, and as you correctly noted, I do struggle with writing using an encyclopedic style, a habit of trying to pull in the reader to tell him or her a story, which causes me to quickly veer off into editorialization. I must admit that I am somewhat blind to it, but once someone points it out, I clearly see it. I think in time, it will correct itself. This may also apply to the narrative. Perhaps I need to be less immersed in the research material and be more organized and focussed with my thoughts. Now, about “citations, citations, citations”... I tend to only use them when I believe something written may be contested. I suppose when writing about a 133-year-old company, everything said could be contested. As suggested, I've added quite a few more, but mostly because having more citations than not having enough, would be a much easier fix come review time. Finally, I do want to thank you immensely for being willing to participate in my journey towards a possible GAR, for responding quickly to my request for an opinion on whether or not I should proceed, and going beyond expectations! — WILDSTARtalk 23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
WildStar It definitely takes time to adjust to the encyclopedic style of writing. Regarding the citations, yes, there is a thing such as WP:OVERCITE, but that is more like an overuse of multiple citations on a single fact/sentence. At the least, all paragraphs should end with a citation pointing the reader to where the information can be found, but don't be afraid of using it throughout the paragraph as well. Even if its something mundane that won't be contested, WP:OR insists that editors do not use original research, and must clearly state where the information is from. Hope that helps! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt comments (part 2)

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
  • I'm doing some hands-on edits, feel free to revert or modify any you don't like.
"where Thomas Edison would go to successfully deploy a system of lights," What in the article supports this? If you keep it, it could be better phrased.
Changed to: "where Thomas Edison would demonstrate his invention of electric incandescent lights," which is supported here. — WILDSTARtalk 19:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
John MacMillan was placed in charge of the generators at the Canada Mill by Billsby, and would be two years later, installing generators at various locations for the Edison Company, which would become part of the General Electric Company. Something wrong with this sentence.
Repharased as follows: John MacMillan was placed in charge of the generators at the textile mill by H.M. Billsby, and after two years there, would go on to install generators at various locations for the Edison Company, which would become part of the General Electric Company. — WILDSTARtalk 19:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll hold off for a bit while BG works with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Balon is not working with me. He had recently completed the process of a GAR, and moved on to a FAN, and as he stated below, I simply asked him for his thoughts on whether or not this article was ready for a GAN. — WILDSTARtalk 22:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
What I really meant to say was that I anticipate you'll be making at least some edits in response to his comments, I'd prefer to wait for those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Already done. I added more citations, removed some editorialization, excessive wording and details, rearranged and trimmed the "Community involvement" section (perhaps not enough), moved and renamed "Regulations" to "Licensing" and placed it near the end of the article. Thank you very much for your help. Take care! — WILDSTARtalk 15:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the main point I'd make (I agree with BG's talk for the need for citations and for the prose in general to be made more engaging) is that the article seems to move back and forth chronologically a few times. I guess I'd ask if the Inception, History (which is itself an odd title for a section that covers 11 years), Electricity Operations and Ownership could be folded into a single chronology, divided into as many chronological sections as may be necessary. The railroad operations could be the section that then follows, and then Community Involvement as now. Since they are all telling the same basic story, it might be good to tell it once.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Wehwalt, the back and forth was me trying to keep all the change of hands under one section. Doing away with that idea has restored the timeline in an orderly fashion. The heading "Inception" is gone. That was just the wrong name. "Name" is a better choice for this section, which is where I want to clearly explain to the reader (alleviating an earlier concern) the origins of the name, and adding why the long corporate name remained. Citations have already been augmented, including one for every paragraph. — WILDSTARtalk 02:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 2 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cornwall Electric/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ruthgrace (talk · contribs) 17:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. It will probably take me a couple days for the first pass. Ruthgrace (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow, so far this article is beautifully written!! Very nice work. I expect all my comments will be minor things.
  • 2nd paragraph in Cornwall_Electric#Name has some things in future tense that I think should be in past tense, since they refer to past events, e.g. "The two companies would merge in 1905" should be "The two companies merged in 1905"
  Done - Reworded the paragraph.
  Done
  • I went ahead and changed "was incorporating federally" to "was incorporated federally" in the 3rd paragraph of Cornwall_Electric#Name
  Done - Changed this back slightly, as both companies were incorporating at the same time; one was further into the process but neither had yet completed incorporation.
  • I'm looking at the citations in the first paragraph of Cornwall_Electric#Early_years, and I think there is some information that is not cited. I've added citation needed tags.
  • I figured out which of the sources was meant to be the citation for the first sentence and filled that one in. Ruthgrace (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  Done
  • I've gone ahead and removed the extra "and" in the first paragraph of Cornwall_Electric#Incorporation: "Company solicitors also prepared a deed of purchase for the use of the water-power plant in a building on land used for a gristmill, and controlled by David Hodge."
  Confirmed
(review to be continued) Ruthgrace (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Back at it!
  • I think it would be good to either remove "who was key to Cornwall's economic growth" here "It was passed on to him by his father Andrew Hodge, who was key to Cornwall's economic growth", or replace it with what Andrew Hodge's specific contribution to Cornwall's economic growth was, to remove editorial bias. (first paragraph of Cornwall_Electric#Incorporation)
  Comment: - The citation says he was a "driving force in Cornwall's economic growth." The water rights he acquired with the purchase of the gristmill allowed Cornwall Electric to grow, and expanding the operation to add a woollen mill and a saw mill employed many more, which also benefited Cornwall Electric. He also served as mayor of Cornwall which on its own affects the utility and town. It's all context that may be important to the narrative.
  Done - I removed the "who was key to Cornwall's economic growth".
  • I've gone ahead and removed the extra comma after "Ontario" in the first paragraph of Cornwall_Electric#Expansion_and_control: "After being in abeyance for several years, the High Court of Justice for Ontario, issued a final order of foreclosure on 13 April 1890."
  Confirmed
  • I've changed the tense of "provided" to match "allowing" in this sentence in the first paragraph of Cornwall_Electric#Expansion_and_control: "An act passed in the provincial legislature of Ontario, provided Stormont Electric with the necessary permission to operate Cornwall Gas Works, allowing it to manufacture and sell gas for light..."
  Done - Changed to: "An act Act passed in the provincial legislature of Ontario, providing provided Stormont Electric with the necessary permission to operate Cornwall Gas Works, allowing it to manufacture and sell gas for light, power, and heat in the town and township of Cornwall, and to increase the value of its capital stock by $50,000."
Hi WildStar, I think there's still a grammar problem here. I think it needs a 'that' added before 'passed', or else its unclear what the subject is (see https://web.ku.edu/~edit/that.html). And there's an extra comma after 'Ontario'. Ruthgrace (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Ruthgrace oh... I see what you mean! — WILDSTARTALK 18:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  Fixed
  Partly done - Reduced to one sentence, but not moved to the next section — a different company.
  Done
  • I think the first sentence in Cornwall_Electric#Cornwall_Electric_Street_Railway_Company_Limited is a little confusing. Maybe split it up into two sentences? "Ten years would pass, before the town council granted on 28 December 1895, another franchise to the Cornwall Electric Street Railway Company, which incorporated in 1896 to offer the same service, using electrical power instead of horse power."
  Note: The date came from here. I can't use the full date. The citation used in that article makes no mention of December 28th. Will either find a new source or modify with just the year and use the original source.
  Done - Removed the paragraph. It was chronologically out of order, and the following paragraph covers that it's a new franchise and that electric service is now provided.
(review to be continued) Ruthgrace (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Continuing on... I've finished reading the article and am looking at the citations now
  • I don't understand the relationship between Franchise agreements and the low cost of power in Cornwall, from the last sentence of the lead: "The company has also been granted legislative exemptions by the provincial regulator, while it holds long-term Franchise agreements with the municipalities and townships it serves, enabling it to provide electricity consumers with some of the lowest rates in Ontario." Looking at the Franchise agreement article, it says "It overall provides the investor with a product, a branded name and recognition, and a support system." In the case of Cornwall Electric, who is the franchiser and who is the franchisee? The citation just says that Cornwall Electric has cheaper power because it's contracted with Hydro Quebec, instead of the Ontario grid.
  Fixed - Reworded the paragraph.
  Done - Replaced citation (which covers date in service, no. of cars, length of track) and moved it back to the end of the paragraph.
  • Third paragraph in Cornwall_Electric#Cornwall_Electric_Street_Railway_Company_Limited: "Cornwall Electric started its passenger streetcar service on 1 July 1896 using an electric locomotive pulling four cars traveling on what was approximately 4.8 kilometres (3.0 mi) of track, and would purchase an additional two cars in 1897." The only info in the citation is the first date, so I've moved the citation there and marked the rest of the sentence as citation needed.
  Done
  Done - Previous citation covers this, which can also be moved to the end of the paragraph.
  Done
(review to be continued) Ruthgrace (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Continuing on...
  Fixed - Used a more direct source (same one she was using).
  • In the last sentence here Cornwall_Electric#Consumers'_Gas_Company_Ltd. there's a quote, but if you read the article cited, the bit that's quoted was actually paraphrased by the author of the article, and not literally said by Ernie Jackson. I think this should be paraphrased instead of quoted.
  Done - Good catch!
  • I think the second paragraph in Cornwall_Electric#Community_involvement about the donations should be deleted, unless you can find a secondary source for them. The current source is the Cornwall Electric company website.
 N Deleted

That's it for my first pass! This is actually my first ever review; if I get any feedback from more experienced Wikipedians about Good Article reviews, I will add more here. Happy to look over it again once this is all addressed, or answer any questions. Good luck! Ruthgrace (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Ruthgrace, I think I covered everything in your first pass. Please let me know if there is anything I may have missed. Thank you! — WILDSTARTALK 02:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi WildStar, I'm trying to find someone with more Wikipedia experience than me to answer two questions:
  1. Is it OK that most of the content of this article comes from one source, Cornwall_Electric#cite_note-Carter-5?
  2. Is it OK that two of the citations are a report from Cornwall Electric's parent company, Fortis? This is a primary source. My feeling is that citing this for the numbers about how much electricity Cornwall Electric provides is OK, since any secondary source would cite the same thing. I'm not sure about other information that uses these citations: Cornwall_Electric#cite_note-power-20 and Cornwall_Electric#cite_note-rates-39
Let me know if you find any Wikipedia guidelines about these things. Ruthgrace (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Ruthgrace, reliance on one secondary source, over others (there are 38 of them), matters not. Citations are only there for verifiability of the material that is included in the article. Also, circling back to the 6 GA criteria may provide you with a renewed sense of perspective and perhaps the answer you seek. I do hope that helps. — WILDSTARTALK 18:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, WildStar. Let me take some time to do some more reading and think about if there's anything else I missed. I'll get back to you Thursday latest! Ruthgrace (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
After sleeping on it, I can't think of anything else to add for the Good Article review, and I'm happy to pass this article!! It indeed well written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated. I particularly liked the detail about the Cornwall Electric employee who saved the day with his bow and arrow during the ice storm. Congratulations :) Ruthgrace (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I've added Cornwall Electric to Wikipedia:Good_articles/Engineering_and_technology#Engineering_technology and added the Good Article tags on the talk page. A bot should come along and give you the Good Article icon, but if it's not working, feel free to ping me to do it manually for you. All the best! Ruthgrace (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Ruthgrace, when you posted that you were going to review the article, there was both joy and trepidation. This GAR was also my first, and I truly did not know what to expect. Thankful and wanting to seize the moment, off I went to the library to pick up my research material. The execution of your review made it easy to get back into the groove. Your advice, which was well taken, certainly added to the improvement of the article and perhaps to the encyclopedia itself. I do hope that you will do it again many more times with others seeking a Good Article Review. It was a pleasure collaborating with you and it is my hope that we can do it again one day!
I would also like to express gratitude to Wehwalt for their contribution, Balon Greyjoy for his unvarnished truth, as well as all the improvements quietly made by other editors. Thank you! — WILDSTARTALK 18:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Ruthgrace Great work on this GA review! One valuable thing that you did is checking some of the sources to see if they support the article content. Checking the sources, which some reviewers unfortunately skip, is essential to detecting issues with verifiability and original research. You did not explicitly mention copyright in the review, but https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ is a great tool to detect copyright violations and close paraphrasing. If you have any questions about image copyright issues, you can ask me or post on the GAN talk page. (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that's tremendously helpful! Thanks, buidhe! Just ran Cornwall Electric through and got Violation Unlikely. :) Ruthgrace (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by WildStar (talk). Self-nominated at 01:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC).

Mandarax, fixed! Thank you very much! — WILDSTARTALK 03:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Fascinating GA on good sources, recent enough, long enough, sourced enough, neutral enough, plagiarism-free enough (AGF for offline sources), hook is cited and very interesting. I very much prefer ALT1. Great job, WildStar! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, thank you for your review. I too much prefer ALT1. To ensure its use in early January, do I simply strike my original hook? Thanks! — WILDSTARTALK 15:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Always an option, WildStar. Since we agree, I've gone ahead and done that for you. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cornwall_Electric/Archive_1&oldid=1110946233"