Providence and Worcester Railroad is a
featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the
Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it,
please do so.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Providence and Worcester Railroad(train pictured) became independent in 1973 after 85 years of being leased?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
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
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
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
File:Providence and Worcester Railroad logo.svg = fair use claimed = fair use under the Copyright law of the United States.
File:Providence and Worcester RR 1909.jpg = is in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer.
File:Route of the Providence and Worcester rail road (11839037763).jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
File:Providence and Worcester Railroad line within Salt Rock State Park, Sprague, Connecticut.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
File:Middletown, CT - rail tracks east of Main St 01.jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.
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.
A Providence and Worcester Railroad train in Connecticut in 2012
... that the Providence and Worcester Railroad became independent in 1973 after 85 years of being leased? Source: Hartley, Scott A. (April 2016). "The key to Providence & Worcester's success: Reinvention". Trains Magazine. pp. 50–57.
ALT1: ... that the Providence and Worcester Railroad has grown from 45 miles of track in 1973 to over 600 miles of track today? Source: Hartley, Scott A. (April 2016). "The key to Providence & Worcester's success: Reinvention". Trains Magazine. pp. 50–57.
Comment: This is my first time including an image as part of a DYKN, let me know if I did anything wrong. The image is used in the article and freely licensed.
The article mentions one accident, but there must be others. Most rail company articles have an "accidents and incidents" section.
Mjroots (
talk)
17:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
In my research for bringing the article to GA and subsequently FA, I have been unable to find any records of serious accidents besides the 1853 collision, and several sources (including Karr's The Rail Lines of Southern New England) explicitly state it was the only major accident in the company's history. There have been minor derailments, of course, but overall the company has had an excellent safety record.
One story was published last year about G&W's safety record in Connecticut, and notes several P&W derailments in 2022, but none were notable enough to merit inclusion in the article, in my judgement. The article also notes that overall, G&W's accident rate per hour worked is less than half the average of U.S. railroads. I am aware many articles have an accidents section, but this is not a Class I railroad with thousands of miles of tracks.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Edit requests
This
edit request by an editor with a
conflict of interest was declined. The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist.
Specific text to be added or removed: Originally a single track, its busy mainline was double-tracked after a fatal 1853 collision in Valley Falls, Rhode Island... Key commodities carried by P&W include lumber, paper, chemicals, steel, construction materials and debris, crushed stone, automobiles, and plastics
Reason for the change: All this data does not have a relevant source to support it and is a lot of information that lacks credibility. Unless there is a more recent source supporting this information, we request this to be removed due to it being uncited.
References supporting change: Not applicable, I want this to be removed, not replaced.
Definitely not. You are proposing to remove 3/4 of the lead section based on lack of citations. Given most of the these are historical claims, they do not need recent sources (facts from 1853 probably haven't changed much in the past few decades). Lead sections do not need cites because they merely highlight or summarize parts of the article body: citing a reliable source in the body is sufficient. You should spend time reviewing our
WP:V policy (and its
WP:RS guideline) and
lead section standard before filing any more requests similar to this one.
Note that this article was recently promoted to "featured article" status, which means it had many layers of scrutinty for content and sourcing quality.
As a specific example, the idea in the lead that double-tracking followed (in time, and also at least partially motivated by) the 1853 accident parallels content in the
§ Construction and operations section. The content in the article is cited to the Heppner book, and this book supports both the timeline and the accident as one motivating factor to get it done.
DMacks (
talk)
18:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
All this data does not have a relevant source to support it and is a lot of information that lacks credibility. Unless there is a more recent source supporting this information, we request this to be removed due to it being uncited. In a word, bullshit. It's all well cited and documented in Karr 2017, Heppner 2012, and Lewis 1973, among other sources. I spent a month on getting this article to featured article status and did extensive research and checking with sources.
Trainsandotherthings (
talk)
21:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply