Talk:Hartford and New Haven Railroad

Hartford and New Haven 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: January 7, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help!

A fact from Hartford and New Haven Railroad appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 January 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 1848, the Hartford and New Haven Railroad was "regularly run with greater speed than any other railroad in the United States"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hartford and New Haven Railroad.

Wikipedia

Trains: in New York City Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 32, 2022

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.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why this stub

I hate to see red on pages I read, like the New Haven Line's, that shouldn't have red. This one is getting close to the very edge of the conveniently accessed historical record, so I can take a little red on it. DCDuring 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hartford and New Haven Railroad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kavyansh.Singh (talk · contribs) 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) at 19:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

Prose

in the state of Connecticut and — suggesting to link Connecticut
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
of New Haven, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
Comma added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The grandfather of J. P. Morgan was an original investor, laying the foundation for the long association between Morgan and the railroads of New England. — I don't understand this sentence. What is 'original investor'?
I'm not entirely sure myself, this was written from before I started improving this article. I think it refers to how J.P. Morgan was heavily involved in the H&NH's successor, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. I've gotten some flack from editors in the past for my tendency to nuke the preceding versions of my GANs in the process of improving them, so I've been trying to be less destructive (but they tend to be pretty bad and totally uncited, so I usually just rewrite everything). Honestly, this sentence can probably just go entirely, it's not important to the understanding of the topic. I don't have access to the source, either. I will remove it. If someone else wants to restore it in a better version, that's fine with me, but it doesn't seem important in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with removing it. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
for the Hartford and Springfield Railroad — I don't think that has to be bold-faced
Boldface removed - how about the boldface in the branches section, should that go as well? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably yes. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
of 50 miles per hour (80 km/h). — why is km and h used as abbreviation, when miles and hour is not?
I don't see any issue with this, as long as I'm being consistent throughout the article. It's a pretty common format for unit conversions. I've addressed the instances of units where I forgot to add conversions so it should be consistent now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the alignment chosen by Alexander Twining in the 1830s, the railroad line was remarkably straight, following natural topography and the Connecticut River, and making this unique speed possible — does not follow WP:NPOV
How would you suggest rewording it? It's a true statement, and the route now sees trains as fast as 110 mph today for the same reason. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is a true statement, I don't think we should be thanking Mr. Twining in Wikipedia's voice. I suggest: "The alignment chosen by Alexander Twining in the 1830s has been widely stated to make the railroad line was ~~remarkably~~ straight, following natural topography and the Connecticut River, and making this ~~unique~~ speed possible" — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point now. I've reworded the sentence as "The railroad's largely straight alignment, which followed natural topography and the Connecticut River, made this possible." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a decision the company would later come to regret — why?
Because less than 20 years later came the Hartford Line project, and the double track had to be added back again. It was a classic example of a penny wise, pound foolish decision. I can add a mention of this in the section, but I didn't do this before as I wanted to keep things in chronological order. But you're right that it's not clear as written, so I will mention this in the prose at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
offering 6 trains — should be 'six'
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Middletown Railroad, Middletown Extension Railroad — any particular reason for bold-facing?
I suppose the reason was that these companies do not have articles of their own, and instead redirect to their respective subsections. I thought that was the right practice, but I may be mistaken. Should the boldface be removed here? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably yes. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a 2 mile long, a 5 mile long — suggesting to use {{Convert}}
Conversions added, though I opted against the template to preserve the "5 mile long" wording. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Commons category}} — should be in the see-also section, not before it.
That's what I get for using VE, I thought it already was in the see also section! Corrected now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That happens a lot! — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the "Technical" details in the info box is never mentioned in the prose
Mention of the route length, both for the main line and including branches, has been added to the prose. Stating that a railroad is standard gauge in the prose is not generally considered necessary for articles in countries where the predominant gauge is standard. To give you an example, South Lake Union Streetcar is a FA (promoted in 2019) and only mentions track gauge in the infobox. Incidentally, this article also uses the same format for unit conversions (miles spelt out, but km abbreviated). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though I think most of the details of the lead+infobox should be in the prose, but that isn't a major issue here. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That tends to be an issue with train articles, where the infoboxes become massive Lovecraftian monsters occupying multiple page lengths, like at Union Pacific Big Boy. That particular infobox is definitely criminal. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That particular infobox is definitely criminal: There is definitely no doubt in that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Images can take ALT text
Alt text has been added. I don't think I'm great at writing alt text so feel free to modify it if you want. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

The rail lines of southern New England : a handbook of railroad history — suggesting to change from sentence to title case
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved 2017-10-17 v. Retrieved November 29, 2021 — inconsistency in date style.
Resolved by adding a use dmy dates template to the top of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats mostly it. Putting on hold. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I've done most of your suggestions, but a few need further comment from you when you get a chance, thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good! Promoting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Hartford and New Haven Railroad freight depot

... that in 1848, the Hartford and New Haven Railroad was "regularly run with greater speed than any other railroad in the United States"? Source: "Great Railroad Speed". Hartford Weekly Times. September 2, 1848. [1]
- ALT1: ... that the Hartford and New Haven Railroad was the first railroad built in the state of Connecticut? Source: Poor, Henry V. (1860). History of the Railroads and Canals of the United States of America. J.H. Schultz & Company. p. 192. [2]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/4th Submarine Squadron (United Kingdom)

Improved to Good Article status by Trainsandotherthings (talk). Self-nominated at 17:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Both hooks are interesting and sourced. I like ALT1 myself, but the primary is fine. QPQ is done. Looks ready to go! Thriley (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0 to T:DYK/P1