![]() | Medway Branch 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: August 11, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Medway Branch appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 October 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
@ Mackensen: I know you prefer Harvard style referencing, but I don't think this is a good place for it. This is never going to be a particularly lengthy article, and it's not going to have a lot of the repeat citations where that style makes things simpler. Right now, five of the six sources only appear once, and there's a repeat page number only once, so the Notes list duplicates the References list. Using {{ rp}} to handle the Karr page numbers seems like a cleaner way for this article.
Side note: Once I add a bit more (one of my books gives an exact opening date) I'd like to nominate it for GA. There's no length requirement provided it's sufficiently broad in its coverage, and I think getting this tiny, short-lived branchline to GA would be entertaining. Any objection? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Golden ( talk · contribs) 20:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. — Golden call me maybe? 20:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
It from North Wrentham- Are we missing a word here?
now Norfolk- Is "North Wrentham" the old name of Norfolk or is it a settlement that was absorbed by Norfolk? If it's the latter, I suggest amending to "now part of"
The 3.6-mile (5.8 km) line- This is our first time seeing this number. Is this referring to the Medway Branch? If so, it'd be a good idea to clarify the length of Medway Branch earlier in the lead.
From North Wrentham station- Can we get a brief description of the location of this station in relation to the Medway Branch?
Factory Village (Medway Village)- Can we get "now", "part of" or anything similar here before "Medway Village"?
was just the seventh rail line- "Just" doesn't seem necessary here.
I removed a problematic statement at the end of the History section a few days ago, which was restored with a tiny change ("purchased" became "planned to purchase") a few minutes later: The corporate entity outlasted the railroad line by over a century: in 1968, the town planned to purchase a parcel "supposedly owned by the Medway Branch Railroad" when constructing a town dump.
The problem is both the claim that "The corporate entity outlasted the railroad line by over a century" and, to a lesser extent, the newly inserted word "planned": while the town may only have been able to trace the ownership to the Medway Branch Railroad and couldn't figure out anything past that (and they wouldn't need to do so if they took the property by eminent domain), just because the town can't figure out who owns the parcel after all the purchases and bankruptcies and mergers in the late 19th century and into the 20th century doesn't mean that the corporate entity still existed in 1968: to say so in Wikipedia's voice is clearly a violation of the GA criteria, and as long as this information remains, should prevent the article from being listed. You'd need to check to see whether the corporate entity is still registered as a corporation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and there's no source given for that. We don't have a good idea of the town's plans, per se: they certainly considered purchasing the parcel, but the warrant article was withdrawn before the 1968 Town Meeting, and without further information about this beyond the annual reports of 1967 and 1968, it feels sketchy.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
19:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The town proposed to purchase a parcel "supposedly owned by the Medway Branch Railroad" in 1968 – over a century after the line was abandoned.? That sidesteps the issue of intent entirely. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 05:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk
14:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 ( talk). Self-nominated at 04:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Medway Branch; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
I was the GA reviewer for this article, which passed the criteria two days ago. The article is adequately sourced and meets all the other requirements. I find the ALT1 hook more interesting than the first one. —
Golden
talk
11:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Pi.1415926535: Ah in the RDT I see now the two "Medway" dots are two stations with the same name. So the horizontal pink line at the top must be the one from the rival company. I am guessing the diagram might be at a very specific time after the rival line was built but before this one was closed? If so it might help to have an RDT before and after that one with dates underneath to show the evolution of the network. And perhaps the company name could be put in brackets after "Medway"? Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Pi.1415926535: Also why the circle meaning "station out of use line in use"? Is that because after the station closed that section of line going right was still used for storing or passing trains?
In the RDT I see now the two "Medway" dots are two stations with the same name. So the horizontal pink line at the top must be the one from the rival company. I am guessing the diagram might be at a very specific time after the rival line was built but before this one was closed? If so it might help to have an RDT before and after that one with dates underneath to show the evolution of the network. And perhaps the company name could be put in brackets after "Medway"? Also why the circle meaning "station out of use line in use"? Is that because after the station closed that section of line going right was still used for storing or passing trains? Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It looks nice in the pic. In UK many disused railway lines have been converted into cycle paths. I wonder if that is also true in the USA and whether anyone has suggested that or walking for this line? Also are there any environmental advantages of the disused line? Perhaps someone local might be able to add more info to the article. Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I wonder whether the financial backers and/or local people considered the nine years of use worthwhile for the money spent? If not did no one foresee the rival line? Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Medway Branch 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: August 11, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Medway Branch appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 October 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
@ Mackensen: I know you prefer Harvard style referencing, but I don't think this is a good place for it. This is never going to be a particularly lengthy article, and it's not going to have a lot of the repeat citations where that style makes things simpler. Right now, five of the six sources only appear once, and there's a repeat page number only once, so the Notes list duplicates the References list. Using {{ rp}} to handle the Karr page numbers seems like a cleaner way for this article.
Side note: Once I add a bit more (one of my books gives an exact opening date) I'd like to nominate it for GA. There's no length requirement provided it's sufficiently broad in its coverage, and I think getting this tiny, short-lived branchline to GA would be entertaining. Any objection? Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 19:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Golden ( talk · contribs) 20:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. — Golden call me maybe? 20:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
It from North Wrentham- Are we missing a word here?
now Norfolk- Is "North Wrentham" the old name of Norfolk or is it a settlement that was absorbed by Norfolk? If it's the latter, I suggest amending to "now part of"
The 3.6-mile (5.8 km) line- This is our first time seeing this number. Is this referring to the Medway Branch? If so, it'd be a good idea to clarify the length of Medway Branch earlier in the lead.
From North Wrentham station- Can we get a brief description of the location of this station in relation to the Medway Branch?
Factory Village (Medway Village)- Can we get "now", "part of" or anything similar here before "Medway Village"?
was just the seventh rail line- "Just" doesn't seem necessary here.
I removed a problematic statement at the end of the History section a few days ago, which was restored with a tiny change ("purchased" became "planned to purchase") a few minutes later: The corporate entity outlasted the railroad line by over a century: in 1968, the town planned to purchase a parcel "supposedly owned by the Medway Branch Railroad" when constructing a town dump.
The problem is both the claim that "The corporate entity outlasted the railroad line by over a century" and, to a lesser extent, the newly inserted word "planned": while the town may only have been able to trace the ownership to the Medway Branch Railroad and couldn't figure out anything past that (and they wouldn't need to do so if they took the property by eminent domain), just because the town can't figure out who owns the parcel after all the purchases and bankruptcies and mergers in the late 19th century and into the 20th century doesn't mean that the corporate entity still existed in 1968: to say so in Wikipedia's voice is clearly a violation of the GA criteria, and as long as this information remains, should prevent the article from being listed. You'd need to check to see whether the corporate entity is still registered as a corporation in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and there's no source given for that. We don't have a good idea of the town's plans, per se: they certainly considered purchasing the parcel, but the warrant article was withdrawn before the 1968 Town Meeting, and without further information about this beyond the annual reports of 1967 and 1968, it feels sketchy.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
19:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The town proposed to purchase a parcel "supposedly owned by the Medway Branch Railroad" in 1968 – over a century after the line was abandoned.? That sidesteps the issue of intent entirely. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 05:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Lightburst
talk
14:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 ( talk). Self-nominated at 04:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Medway Branch; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
I was the GA reviewer for this article, which passed the criteria two days ago. The article is adequately sourced and meets all the other requirements. I find the ALT1 hook more interesting than the first one. —
Golden
talk
11:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Pi.1415926535: Ah in the RDT I see now the two "Medway" dots are two stations with the same name. So the horizontal pink line at the top must be the one from the rival company. I am guessing the diagram might be at a very specific time after the rival line was built but before this one was closed? If so it might help to have an RDT before and after that one with dates underneath to show the evolution of the network. And perhaps the company name could be put in brackets after "Medway"? Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Pi.1415926535: Also why the circle meaning "station out of use line in use"? Is that because after the station closed that section of line going right was still used for storing or passing trains?
In the RDT I see now the two "Medway" dots are two stations with the same name. So the horizontal pink line at the top must be the one from the rival company. I am guessing the diagram might be at a very specific time after the rival line was built but before this one was closed? If so it might help to have an RDT before and after that one with dates underneath to show the evolution of the network. And perhaps the company name could be put in brackets after "Medway"? Also why the circle meaning "station out of use line in use"? Is that because after the station closed that section of line going right was still used for storing or passing trains? Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It looks nice in the pic. In UK many disused railway lines have been converted into cycle paths. I wonder if that is also true in the USA and whether anyone has suggested that or walking for this line? Also are there any environmental advantages of the disused line? Perhaps someone local might be able to add more info to the article. Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I wonder whether the financial backers and/or local people considered the nine years of use worthwhile for the money spent? If not did no one foresee the rival line? Chidgk1 ( talk) 07:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)