Talk:Moshassuck Valley Railroad

Moshassuck Valley Railroad has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 4, 2022. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Moshassuck Valley Railroad appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 June 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the two-mile-long (3.2 km) Moshassuck Valley Railroad (pictured) operated independently for 105 years?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Moshassuck Valley Railroad.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Rhode Island Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Rhode Island portal This article is supported by WikiProject Rhode Island (assessed as Low-importance).

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 SL93 (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Moshassuck Valley Railroad 3 in 1933

... that the two-mile (3.2 km) long Moshassuck Valley Railroad operated independently for 105 years? Source: Karr, Ronald Dale (2017). The Rail Lines of Southern New England (2nd ed.). Pepperell, Massachusetts: Branch Line Press. pp. 184–185.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/James Markham Ambler

Created by Trainsandotherthings (talk). Self-nominated at 16:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

New enough and long enough. QPQ present. It's a short and punchy article (that's one short railroad!) and this is probably the best hook possible for it. AGF on the offline source Karr. No textual issues. Minor copyediting of adjective length distance in hook. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Surprisingly enough, there's enough coverage of the subject that I could probably write an article 5 times the current length. It's just a matter of me finding the time to work on it. But right now I've got something thorough enough to go to DYK. It will probably be significantly longer by the time it hits the main page. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:Moshassuck Valley Railroad/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 07:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Embiggen lead please
Embiggened. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead contains info about the subject that isn't in the article (shortline status, )
Shortline status, while I thought was obvious from the line being 2 miles long, is now explicitly stated in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead says it was built from 1876 to 1877, but the body says a train was first run in 1876 - seems confusing to me
These actually don't contradict each other. A locomotive first ran on the line in December 1876, but it didn't open for service until January 1877. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

"W. F. and Frederick Sayles" reads like a couple of dudes' names, but later context makes it clear it's a company. Can you clarify in-text earlier? (maybe "by the W. F. and Frederick Sayles company, founded by Frank and Frederick Sayles"?)
Will look into this. The text there was added by an IP following a drive-by edit by another editor disputing the company's origin. It's late on the east coast so I will address this tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per this source, the brothers were the founders of the railroad. I have rewritten the founding section accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Passenger service continued until 1921, when it was discontinued" - could be simplified to "Passenger service was discontinued in 1921."
I've modified this to "Passenger service continued until 1921, when it was ended following increased competition from streetcars.". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is me being biased against short subsections but I don't think "Expansion attempt" needs its own sub-subheading. Won't die on the hill if you insist on keeping it but I need to say it :P
I think the subsection is necessary. Otherwise, the history section is out of chronological order and may confuse the reader. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minimal commentary this time around. It's a short one so didn't have too much to gripe about :) Sources are fine, images are either PD-old or user-generated. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.