Talk:Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad

Did you know nomination

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 BorgQueen (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1885, parts of the Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad were submerged by flooding from the Connecticut River? Source:
• ALT1: ... that the Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad was shut down just 11 years after it opened? Source: Karr, Ronald Dale (2017). The Rail Lines of Southern New England (2nd ed.). Pepperell, Massachusetts: Branch Line Press. p. 89
• ALT2: ... that the Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad, which was originally created as an alternative to the New Haven Railroad, was later absorbed into the New Haven after just 11 years of operation? Source: Karr, Ronald Dale (2017). The Rail Lines of Southern New England (2nd ed.). Pepperell, Massachusetts: Branch Line Press. p. 89
• ALT3"... that the Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad, created as an alternative to the New Haven Railroad, was absorbed into the New Haven after just 11 years?" Source: Karr, Ronald Dale (2017). The Rail Lines of Southern New England (2nd ed.). Pepperell, Massachusetts: Branch Line Press. p. 89
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Note to reviewer:QPQ is not needed as this is only my fifth ever nomination.

Created by Locomotive207 (talk) and Trainsandotherthings (talk). Nominated by Locomotive207 at 02:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Comment Hi Locomotive207, thanks for creating this article. I have edited the article and plan to make some substantial improvements today, so I'm recusing from reviewing, but I don't think the current hook is very compelling. Railroads near rivers flooding is a fairly routine occurrence (even more so in the 1800s before the advent of national flood control legislation); I do not think the proposed hook meets the interesting criterion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings, thank you so much for your expansion and GA nom. You've added a level of content and detail to this article that I never could have added with my limited sources. With regards to the hook, I agree it may be a little dull. I'll draft up an ALT1 and see what the reviewer thinks.--🚂Locomotive207-talk🚂 21:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest ALT1: "... that the Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad was shut down just 11 years after it opened?" Source: Karr, Ronald Dale (2017). The Rail Lines of Southern New England (2nd ed.). Pepperell, Massachusetts: Branch Line Press. p. 89 Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a good hook. I've also added an ALT2 which is pretty similar to yours but longer just in case. Thanks for the review Epicgenius.--🚂Locomotive207-talk🚂 21:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Locomotive207: Thanks for the response. Sadly, at 204 characters, ALT2 exceeds the 200-character maximum. It's unnecessarily wordy - for instance, you can say "created" instead of "which was originally created". This conveys the exact same thing: "... that the Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad, created as an alternative to the New Haven Railroad, was absorbed into the New Haven after just 11 years?"

I've also modified the hook so it links directly to New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, rather than to the redirect New Haven Railroad, as redirects should not be linked from the Main Page. Epicgenius (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

My bad on that one, Epicgenius. I've added the edited-down version to the top as ALT3. At this point, either ALT1 or ALT3 should be good to go.--🚂Locomotive207-talk🚂 01:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Nice work on this article. I'm crediting Trainsandotherthings for this nomination as well, given his exceptional work on the article. The nominator, Locomotive207, has fewer than five QPQs at this moment, so the QPQ requirement is satisfied. ALT1 is good to go, but I don't think the original hook will be interesting to a broad audience, so I have stricken it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Routemap

I'm working on a routemap ({{Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad}}), mostly working from old USGS and Sanborn maps. Mackensen (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen Thanks for creating that! A few tidbits from my research:

• The MW&CR crossed under the Middletown Branch at Westfield. There was a track connection in the south quadrant, though it's not clear to me whether that existed before the streetcar service began in 1907. See the WESTFIELD2 entry here. (I generally treat that site as a reliable source, FYI, since the author is a recognized expert and it's well sourced.)
• It's worth showing the original Meriden entry, which branched off to the south just east of East Meriden. (It's included in the KML map on the article.) While it was only used briefly for steam passenger service, it remained in freight use for decades there after, and it was used by the streetcars as far as Pratt Street as well.
• There were connections with the NH&N and the Valley Line, both in the southwest quadrant.
• It appears from the 1915 valuation map that it crossed over the NH&N on a bridge.
• The downtown Waterbury situation is tricky. It looks like you're showing the original track configuration through Waterbury, where the Highland (NY&NE) and the Naugatuck had separate alignments through downtown, and the MW&CR connected to the NY&NE. The same site indicates that passenger service only served downtown Waterbury from 1889 to 1890, which I'll need to correct in the prose and station listing, so I think your configuration is best.

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Valuation map appears to show the south quadrant connection at Westfield to the Berlin line, with the Cromwell section abandoned. Link to all 1915 maps. Mackensen (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 revisions finished. Further thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Looks great! I made a couple minor changes and added it to the infobox. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this article could really use a map, preferably one showing the routes, town names, and perhaps construction/abandonment dates. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Formation & History of the Connecticut Company and Connecticut Railway & Lighting Company

This source feels self-published. Is Stanford an expert, and is it replaceable (maybe by Hilton & Due)? Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Mackensen: It is self-published, but Stanford does seem to be an expert who's written several other publications on Connecticut transportation. It's cited in a NRHP nomination, and every subsequent book on Connecticut streetcars heavily cribs from it. I've found newspaper sources to additionally verify the specific dates; I'll add those shortly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meriden, Waterbury and Connecticut River Railroad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Dibsing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Minor prose tweaks noted below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig negative, spot checks on Snow and the Newspapers.com sources turned up no concerns about close para/accuracy.

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:

Suggested tweaks

• The sentence "Originally granted..." feels confusing, as it doesn't address the charter until midway through the sentence. Maybe move the charter up, as in "The charter, originally granted, blah blah"
• "Following the assumption of control by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad-controlled New England Railroad" It's slightly ambiguous as to what they took control of
• "both Connecticut's winter weather and swampy ground" don't think you need the word both here but I won't die about it

That's it! Nothing to prevent a pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.