Talk:Princeton–Deepwater District

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) 17:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that part of West Virginia's Princeton–Deepwater District railway was so steep that coal trains needed to be broken up into segments to ascend it?
  Source: [1] "These 6,000-ton trains are taken up the two per cent grade to Clark's Gap, W. Va... Sufficient tracks are available at Clark's Gap to provide for filling out trains to 9,000 tons at that point... Now that this work is completed 9,000-ton trains are hauled by one locomotive on the way from Clark's Gap to Roanoke."
  • Reviewed: Mense

Created by Antony-22 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC).

• The article is new and long enough, but I'm just wondering if the hook could more precisely match what's in the actual article. "The 2% grade..." bit reads quite technically and isn't directly cited either. At least state somewhere in the article that the railway was so steep instead of giving the reader the extra job of having to infer/click on the grade link. More importantly, I'm not sure how reliable some of the references are, blogspot ones are 99% of the time a no-no---in this instance, the photog page you've cited is almost certainly bad. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: I added that a 2% grade is very steep to the article text. Given the topic, I think that a blog post from someone who specializes in railroad photography is reasonably reliable enough. I could try to find a more reliable source if you really want one. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Kingoflettuce and Antony-22: Any updates on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Still unconvinced about the reliability of either cited source. The first is currently not accessible to me because of security concerns. The second is, as stated, hosted by blogspot and just looks bad in a WP:DUCK way. Kingoflettuce (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Foamer train editor here. I've looked at both sources and I don't think either meets Wikipedia's requirements for reliability. For what it's worth, the first source is likely accurate, but per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines we need a better source than a photographer's blog. There's very likely publications out there about this line which would substantiate the hook, but it's well outside the area I work on (southern New England). This issue (we can't find reliable sources covering the topic) is an example of why I dislike the creation of standalone pages for most rail lines, but that's another matter. And as for the hook, the source claims that NS still breaks the trains into two parts to this day, so the hook should not imply it was only a past practice. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll look for some better sources then. I'll double-check the hook fact as well. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce and Trainsandotherthings: Is the updated source better? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:33, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Railway Age is definitely a reliable source, and it appears to me to substantiate that trains were broken into shorter lengths to ascend the grade before being combined into larger trains. I'd say this is good to go now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Kingoflettuce: This is ready for a new review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The original reviewer doesn't need to come back, anyone can pass it on the basis that the issues of the previous review have been resolved. Trainsandotherthings appears to have approved it, though they didn't include the tick icon. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging Trainsandotherthings to give a tick if he feels that the page is ready for approval. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• I see no issues, here's a tick: . Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2022 (UTC)