New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Why does the article state that the 112.5 mph was officially recorded, when Flying Scotsman was the first locomotive to go over 100 mph? Not to mention that City of Truro was more likely to have reached 100 mph first, based on the relatively accurate timings made on her 1904 run. GreatLakesShips 🤘 ( talk - contribs) 15:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I have tagged the statement in the lead, and the entire section, claiming the world speed record, because it's all sourced to very old (mostly contemporaneous) sources, and these newer, scholarly sources all explicitly state this claimed record is dubious:
Let's just say that 999 was a very fast engine, but its record-smashing sprint of May 10, 1893 should be asterisked as "possible" or "claimed" and not taken as gospel.- This entire article is about the 999's claimed record.
[p. 29] So what is the authenticity of the claim on behalf of No. 999 that it reached 112.5 mph on May 10, 1893, on the straight track west of Batavia, N.Y.? Contemporary accounts paint an exciting, dramatic picture ... [lengthy discussion of using stopwatches to time trains over short distances] A two-second error, easy enough to contemplate, is an error of six and a half miles per hour. Webb triumphantly declared the speed to be 112.5 mph. He generously rounded up the "31 1/2 seconds." He was hardly a disinterested observer. There is a less obvious but more profound basis for doubt ... [mechanical discussion] ... Even 100 mph is near the limit of its capacity. The claim of 112.5 is probably out of the question.- Almost all of Chapter 1 of this book is about this.
The Empire State Express carried in April 1893 a speed recorder that peaked at 86 miles an hour.cited to The Electrical Engineer 1893 Vol 15 p470. What is a "speed recorder"? Withuhn p. 30 (cited at the end of that paragraph) says "There was no such thing as a speedometer on a locomotive, calibrated or otherwise." I think our saying "speed recorder" implies speedometer, and that seems incorrect? Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
...it was declared to have reached 101.5 miles per hour...- declared by whom? The source cited at the end of the paragraph (Withuhn p. 30) says "...Hogan and Elliott are reported to have exceeded 100 mph on May 9. They must have had few doubts, because on May 10, the run was made on a regular train." There's a difference in my mind between "reported" and "declared", but I think we should say explicitly that the railroad said that its car exceeded 100 mph on May 9. Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Word spread quickly of this high speed event and when Hogan operated the train the next day going back to Buffalo large crowds gathered all along the route.Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The claimed speed of 112.5 miles per hour (181.1 km/h) was run on May 10 as a new world speed record for a steam locomotive.I'm not sure I understand "was run on May 10 as a new world speed record". I think, maybe, "was claimed to be a new world speed record"? Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The reputed 112.5 mile per hour world speed record had not been exceeded yet until 1904.Who exceeded it in 1904? The sources cited, newspapers from 1923, 1936, and 1959, probably aren't reliable sources for these speed record claims. Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The possible record made No. 999 the first object on wheels to exceed 100 mph.- I don't see this in the cited source, Meehan 2007? Also, Withuhn, p. 29, lists various other railroads that had claimed to exceed 100 mph prior to the 999. Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The locomotive engine and the train of railroad cars it pulled was known as the "world's most glamorous train" and the "world's most beautiful locomotive ever built."- I don't think the sources cited establish it was "known as" either of these things. In fact, that the "Historian's Note" says in its own voice that it "was to become the world's most beautiful locomotive ever built" makes me think the "Historian's Note" is not a reliable source; historians don't say things like that in their own voice. (That whole source is written in a promotional style, very similar to the other cited source, a 1943 article in The Ithaca Journal.) Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a letter from historian John H. White published in 2014 by Railroad History which expressed real skepticism about the 112.5 record.- this makes it sound like he's the only one... Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
...it was published nationwide by hundreds of other newspapers, but the title of Meehan's work is "The 1893 run that reputedly broke world speed records got surprisingly modest coverage in contemporary news accounts", so that's a contradiction we must deal with somehow. Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
To those I would add a letter from
John H. White Jr. that Railroad History published in 2014, which expressed real skepticism about the 112.5 record: White, John H., Jr. (2014).
"Reflections On NYC 999".
Railroad History (211): 124.
ISSN
0090-7847.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)--
Mackensen
(talk)
22:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 15:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
OK on most changes; I think if you want to keep the sentence about Hogan it would need rephrasing; that's much too close to the source. My recommendation would be to make it 'Engineer Hogan and the No. 999 locomotive were the "star attractions"' keeping those two words in quotes to avoid a close paraphrasing problem. I still don't think you need the second half but if you do keep it it has to be paraphrased. Also, if we're keeping FN 1 can you format it correctly? It's a bare external link at the moment. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Pass. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The article contains the sentence, "It took less than 32 seconds for the train to travel between Batavia and Buffalo" This is a speed of 4,600 mph. OrewaTel ( talk) 22:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a reliable source. The webpage is self-published, by Kevin V. Bunker. What I've been able to find on Bunker is that he collaborated with Mary Amanda Helmich on a book on the Southern Pacific shops in Sacramento [1], and had a brief note in the May 2009 issue of Trains. It's not an article, just a photo and paragraph about the start of Green Line service in Portland. He seems to be pretty active in locomotive preservation. Per WP:SPS, we need something attesting his status as an expert. Either publications, or people writing about him. The source itself is probably replacable. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
To me if a person is a director of a Historical Society it is very likely he got that position because he is a historian considered an authority– That's complete nonsense. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and just make stuff up in your head. Local historical societies almost always consist of dedicated, enthusiastic amateurs -- amateurs -- and the president is typically the most enthusiastic of them and/or the person willing to make the coffee for the monthly meetings. (I know because my own research regularly brings me into contact with such groups -- and don't get me wrong, they're great people who serve an indispensable purpose.) It's becoming more and more clear that you lack the judgment to evaluate sources. E Eng 22:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The article was a Good Article on September 1. There was no dispute then. The Bunker doubt came after that: yes, and what I'm saying is that the GA review missed (a) that the source was of uncertain provenance and (b) that the article as written committed multiple copyright violations from said source. The GA review appears to have been cursory at best, and we're swiftly heading into GAR territory. What source replaces Bunker for the first paragraph? Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Holbrook seems to present a much more complicated picture than NY Central and PA railroads racing to the Chicago World's Fair. Holbrook says on p. 95 that Daniels came up with the name "Empire State Express" and proposed designing a fast locomotive to publicize the train; and on p. 96 Holbrook says that the Empire State Express itself was a result of railmaster Plimmon Dudley designing a new type of stronger rail allowing heavier rolling stock to be built. I don't see where Holbrook mentions the Chicago World's Fair as part of the impetus for designing the 999, except in the line "Daniels arranged to have 999 and a complete Empire State Express on view at the Columbian Exposition [aka Chicago World's Fair]", but that was after "he reputedly drove her for one mile at the rate of 112.5 miles an hour" (note "reputedly").In the early 1890s, the competition between the New York Central and the Pennsylvania Railroad was growing fiercely. Their rivalry was particularly noticeable along their Chicago to New York corridors in the years leading to the Chicago World's Fair, with both railroads trying to provide the quickest to the fair. The Pennsylvania had upgraded its Pennsylvania Limited with the most modern and efficient rolling stock of the time. The New York Central similarly upgraded its Empire State Express train's rolling stock; however, knowing that this would not be enough, the railroad began exploring other options so as to outperform its rival.
Personally, I don't think this article needs to get into the whole (complex) background of the rise of the New York Central Railroad, nor the Empire State Express. I think it's sufficient to just say that Daniels proposed designing a fast locomotive to promote the new Empire State Express, cited to Holbrook 1947 (for now but better source needed), and leave it at that. Levivich 19:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
In 1892, New York Central Railroad's General Passenger Agent, George Henry Daniels, proposed a new, fast locomotive be designed to publicize the Empire State Express at the upcoming World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, sourced to Moses 2005 p. 920, LSJ 1957, and Holbrook 1947 p. 95? Levivich 20:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Mackensen, I feel I should comment here, as I was the GA reviewer. My spotcheck of Doug's work was not cursory, it was more or less non-existent; it did not occur to me that an experienced editor needed to be spotchecked. Typically when reviewing GAs I only spotcheck occasionally, or when I have some reason to suspect a problem. I will be doing spotchecks regularly going forward, as well as using Earwig. When I saw the ANI thread I posted a note on Doug's talk page telling him I would be going back through the GAs of his I have promoted recently and would be nominating them at GAR if they had problems; he agreed to review his own work before I did that. I wanted to give Doug time to clean up his own messes before going through the articles, but events seem to have overtaken that. I'll start my pass shortly, starting with articles others have not yet looked at. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Ref #4 (marked as a Wikipedia reference) of Genesse County Historian's Note about the Baltimore Fair seems to be a legitimate source. Its from the Genessee County (New York) history department, which looks like a large department of the county. Batavia is the county seat of Genessee County, New York. This is where the 999 ran the world record of 112.5 miles per hour. Its NOT a Wikipedia source, but a source from the history department of Genessee County, New York. I will be removing the disputed tag and Wikipedia source tag. -- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 18:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I feel that the issues with the speed record are sufficient enough to have a section called something like Veracity of 100MPH claim which talks about the recording issues, modern analysis, etc. Gusfriend ( talk) 08:56, 8 September 2022 (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.
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. The claim that this locomotive set a speed record is widely contested in reliable sources, but this article treats it like an undisputed fact. In addition, this article was created by Doug Coldwell who habitually included major instances of close paraphrasing in his articles. An article which utterly fails to consider all viewpoints in reliable sources cannot be said to meet the GA criteria. This should be delisted unless someone is willing to put in significant work to improve the article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Sources removed from article per WP:DCGAR and discussion at the Good article reassessment: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)The 999 was mounted on other engines of the class, and had its brakes mounted to the front truck, which was a new approach.
This is the first sentence of New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999#Development. What does "999 was mounted" mean? OrewaTel ( talk) 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Why does the article state that the 112.5 mph was officially recorded, when Flying Scotsman was the first locomotive to go over 100 mph? Not to mention that City of Truro was more likely to have reached 100 mph first, based on the relatively accurate timings made on her 1904 run. GreatLakesShips 🤘 ( talk - contribs) 15:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I have tagged the statement in the lead, and the entire section, claiming the world speed record, because it's all sourced to very old (mostly contemporaneous) sources, and these newer, scholarly sources all explicitly state this claimed record is dubious:
Let's just say that 999 was a very fast engine, but its record-smashing sprint of May 10, 1893 should be asterisked as "possible" or "claimed" and not taken as gospel.- This entire article is about the 999's claimed record.
[p. 29] So what is the authenticity of the claim on behalf of No. 999 that it reached 112.5 mph on May 10, 1893, on the straight track west of Batavia, N.Y.? Contemporary accounts paint an exciting, dramatic picture ... [lengthy discussion of using stopwatches to time trains over short distances] A two-second error, easy enough to contemplate, is an error of six and a half miles per hour. Webb triumphantly declared the speed to be 112.5 mph. He generously rounded up the "31 1/2 seconds." He was hardly a disinterested observer. There is a less obvious but more profound basis for doubt ... [mechanical discussion] ... Even 100 mph is near the limit of its capacity. The claim of 112.5 is probably out of the question.- Almost all of Chapter 1 of this book is about this.
The Empire State Express carried in April 1893 a speed recorder that peaked at 86 miles an hour.cited to The Electrical Engineer 1893 Vol 15 p470. What is a "speed recorder"? Withuhn p. 30 (cited at the end of that paragraph) says "There was no such thing as a speedometer on a locomotive, calibrated or otherwise." I think our saying "speed recorder" implies speedometer, and that seems incorrect? Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
...it was declared to have reached 101.5 miles per hour...- declared by whom? The source cited at the end of the paragraph (Withuhn p. 30) says "...Hogan and Elliott are reported to have exceeded 100 mph on May 9. They must have had few doubts, because on May 10, the run was made on a regular train." There's a difference in my mind between "reported" and "declared", but I think we should say explicitly that the railroad said that its car exceeded 100 mph on May 9. Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Word spread quickly of this high speed event and when Hogan operated the train the next day going back to Buffalo large crowds gathered all along the route.Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The claimed speed of 112.5 miles per hour (181.1 km/h) was run on May 10 as a new world speed record for a steam locomotive.I'm not sure I understand "was run on May 10 as a new world speed record". I think, maybe, "was claimed to be a new world speed record"? Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The reputed 112.5 mile per hour world speed record had not been exceeded yet until 1904.Who exceeded it in 1904? The sources cited, newspapers from 1923, 1936, and 1959, probably aren't reliable sources for these speed record claims. Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The possible record made No. 999 the first object on wheels to exceed 100 mph.- I don't see this in the cited source, Meehan 2007? Also, Withuhn, p. 29, lists various other railroads that had claimed to exceed 100 mph prior to the 999. Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The locomotive engine and the train of railroad cars it pulled was known as the "world's most glamorous train" and the "world's most beautiful locomotive ever built."- I don't think the sources cited establish it was "known as" either of these things. In fact, that the "Historian's Note" says in its own voice that it "was to become the world's most beautiful locomotive ever built" makes me think the "Historian's Note" is not a reliable source; historians don't say things like that in their own voice. (That whole source is written in a promotional style, very similar to the other cited source, a 1943 article in The Ithaca Journal.) Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a letter from historian John H. White published in 2014 by Railroad History which expressed real skepticism about the 112.5 record.- this makes it sound like he's the only one... Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
...it was published nationwide by hundreds of other newspapers, but the title of Meehan's work is "The 1893 run that reputedly broke world speed records got surprisingly modest coverage in contemporary news accounts", so that's a contradiction we must deal with somehow. Levivich 😃 20:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
To those I would add a letter from
John H. White Jr. that Railroad History published in 2014, which expressed real skepticism about the 112.5 record: White, John H., Jr. (2014).
"Reflections On NYC 999".
Railroad History (211): 124.
ISSN
0090-7847.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)--
Mackensen
(talk)
22:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mike Christie ( talk · contribs) 15:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll review this.
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
15:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
OK on most changes; I think if you want to keep the sentence about Hogan it would need rephrasing; that's much too close to the source. My recommendation would be to make it 'Engineer Hogan and the No. 999 locomotive were the "star attractions"' keeping those two words in quotes to avoid a close paraphrasing problem. I still don't think you need the second half but if you do keep it it has to be paraphrased. Also, if we're keeping FN 1 can you format it correctly? It's a bare external link at the moment. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Pass. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
The article contains the sentence, "It took less than 32 seconds for the train to travel between Batavia and Buffalo" This is a speed of 4,600 mph. OrewaTel ( talk) 22:35, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is a reliable source. The webpage is self-published, by Kevin V. Bunker. What I've been able to find on Bunker is that he collaborated with Mary Amanda Helmich on a book on the Southern Pacific shops in Sacramento [1], and had a brief note in the May 2009 issue of Trains. It's not an article, just a photo and paragraph about the start of Green Line service in Portland. He seems to be pretty active in locomotive preservation. Per WP:SPS, we need something attesting his status as an expert. Either publications, or people writing about him. The source itself is probably replacable. Mackensen (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
To me if a person is a director of a Historical Society it is very likely he got that position because he is a historian considered an authority– That's complete nonsense. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and just make stuff up in your head. Local historical societies almost always consist of dedicated, enthusiastic amateurs -- amateurs -- and the president is typically the most enthusiastic of them and/or the person willing to make the coffee for the monthly meetings. (I know because my own research regularly brings me into contact with such groups -- and don't get me wrong, they're great people who serve an indispensable purpose.) It's becoming more and more clear that you lack the judgment to evaluate sources. E Eng 22:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The article was a Good Article on September 1. There was no dispute then. The Bunker doubt came after that: yes, and what I'm saying is that the GA review missed (a) that the source was of uncertain provenance and (b) that the article as written committed multiple copyright violations from said source. The GA review appears to have been cursory at best, and we're swiftly heading into GAR territory. What source replaces Bunker for the first paragraph? Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Holbrook seems to present a much more complicated picture than NY Central and PA railroads racing to the Chicago World's Fair. Holbrook says on p. 95 that Daniels came up with the name "Empire State Express" and proposed designing a fast locomotive to publicize the train; and on p. 96 Holbrook says that the Empire State Express itself was a result of railmaster Plimmon Dudley designing a new type of stronger rail allowing heavier rolling stock to be built. I don't see where Holbrook mentions the Chicago World's Fair as part of the impetus for designing the 999, except in the line "Daniels arranged to have 999 and a complete Empire State Express on view at the Columbian Exposition [aka Chicago World's Fair]", but that was after "he reputedly drove her for one mile at the rate of 112.5 miles an hour" (note "reputedly").In the early 1890s, the competition between the New York Central and the Pennsylvania Railroad was growing fiercely. Their rivalry was particularly noticeable along their Chicago to New York corridors in the years leading to the Chicago World's Fair, with both railroads trying to provide the quickest to the fair. The Pennsylvania had upgraded its Pennsylvania Limited with the most modern and efficient rolling stock of the time. The New York Central similarly upgraded its Empire State Express train's rolling stock; however, knowing that this would not be enough, the railroad began exploring other options so as to outperform its rival.
Personally, I don't think this article needs to get into the whole (complex) background of the rise of the New York Central Railroad, nor the Empire State Express. I think it's sufficient to just say that Daniels proposed designing a fast locomotive to promote the new Empire State Express, cited to Holbrook 1947 (for now but better source needed), and leave it at that. Levivich 19:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
In 1892, New York Central Railroad's General Passenger Agent, George Henry Daniels, proposed a new, fast locomotive be designed to publicize the Empire State Express at the upcoming World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893, sourced to Moses 2005 p. 920, LSJ 1957, and Holbrook 1947 p. 95? Levivich 20:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Mackensen, I feel I should comment here, as I was the GA reviewer. My spotcheck of Doug's work was not cursory, it was more or less non-existent; it did not occur to me that an experienced editor needed to be spotchecked. Typically when reviewing GAs I only spotcheck occasionally, or when I have some reason to suspect a problem. I will be doing spotchecks regularly going forward, as well as using Earwig. When I saw the ANI thread I posted a note on Doug's talk page telling him I would be going back through the GAs of his I have promoted recently and would be nominating them at GAR if they had problems; he agreed to review his own work before I did that. I wanted to give Doug time to clean up his own messes before going through the articles, but events seem to have overtaken that. I'll start my pass shortly, starting with articles others have not yet looked at. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Ref #4 (marked as a Wikipedia reference) of Genesse County Historian's Note about the Baltimore Fair seems to be a legitimate source. Its from the Genessee County (New York) history department, which looks like a large department of the county. Batavia is the county seat of Genessee County, New York. This is where the 999 ran the world record of 112.5 miles per hour. Its NOT a Wikipedia source, but a source from the history department of Genessee County, New York. I will be removing the disputed tag and Wikipedia source tag. -- Doug Coldwell ( talk) 18:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I feel that the issues with the speed record are sufficient enough to have a section called something like Veracity of 100MPH claim which talks about the recording issues, modern analysis, etc. Gusfriend ( talk) 08:56, 8 September 2022 (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.
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. The claim that this locomotive set a speed record is widely contested in reliable sources, but this article treats it like an undisputed fact. In addition, this article was created by Doug Coldwell who habitually included major instances of close paraphrasing in his articles. An article which utterly fails to consider all viewpoints in reliable sources cannot be said to meet the GA criteria. This should be delisted unless someone is willing to put in significant work to improve the article. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Sources removed from article per WP:DCGAR and discussion at the Good article reassessment: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)The 999 was mounted on other engines of the class, and had its brakes mounted to the front truck, which was a new approach.
This is the first sentence of New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999#Development. What does "999 was mounted" mean? OrewaTel ( talk) 21:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)