Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cedar Hill Yard/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2022 [1].

Cedar Hill Yard

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second nomination of this article. My first nomination last year, while garnering 3 supports, was failed over text-source integrity concerns, and my reaction to this was less than ideal. I gave it 4 months to cool off, and have since performed a major check for this issue and made numerous corrections. The article itself is about a rail yard in Connecticut, which once held the title of the largest such facility in the United States east of the Mississippi River. Today it is much smaller, but remains the largest rail yard in Connecticut. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you forgot to transclude this to the main FAC page. I did that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I get for starting a FAC at almost midnight my time. Thank you for catching that! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak

Classification yard is linked twice in the lede (once as "humps"). Check article thoroughly for other duplinks.
This is true, but the link written as "humps" is to a specific section of the article. Not sure how best to handle this. Hump yards probably deserve their own dedicated article but that's a project for another day. Does this still count as a violation of duplink? If so, I can remove it, but I believe retaining it provides relevant information to the reader. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine to my eyes - DUPLINK is written in terms of "generally", and I think IAR would be well-applied here as it is legitimately beneficial to the reader. AviationFreak💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my eyes some of the commas in the article are extraneous (e.g. last comma in the first paragraph), but I am personally particularly picky about this and not even sure that my reading is the "correct" one. Wouldn't worry about this unless other editors say anything.
Our article on Selkirk Yard states that it was built in 1924 and was merely rebuilt in '68.
Yes, the rebuilding in 1968 was what led to Cedar Hill's decline. All mentions which implied it was newly built have been edited accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why were the Mott Haven workers striking?
You mention this right below, but the claim is that they were striking just because other workers were striking at Mott Haven. The strike did indeed end within 2 days after it began Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My question concerns the actual Mott Haven strikers themselves though - Why were they striking? I thought it might be helpful to have a phrase about why the strike took place to begin with. AviationFreak💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out the Mott Haven workers went on strike because the railroad abruptly fired the assistant yard master there without any sort of proceedings first, which upset the workers who liked him. I've added a bit about this to the article along with a new source which says this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...beyond sympathy with the Mott Haven strikers. - This should be "sympathy for the Mott Haven strikers."
Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking Switchman
Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking Brakeman
Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking Flagman
Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Love the inflation templates, but for values this large (especially when spelling out "million" for the original value) I would recommend using {{Format price}}. Documentation on this here.
I spent about 15 minutes trying to figure this out and I have had no success. I could just write them in plain text, but that loses the ability to quickly update the inflation end year in the future. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong but I can't get this to work properly. It seems so silly that I can't figure out something this simple but here we are. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I got it done for all the places where it would be applicable. AviationFreak💬 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I'm not sure why it gave me such a headache. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no fewer than seems overly editorialized to me
Yeah, I can see how that could come across that way. I've removed that phrase. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest changing ...allowed for fewer workers... to "...required fewer workers..."
Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specify whether 91,000 t is long or metric tons
That's metric tons. The conversion template uses "t" for metric tons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...resulting in the hills... -> "...creating the hills..."
Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphenate battery powered
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...in the entire United States -> "in the United States"
Word removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the detail that the towers were labeled A through D really necessary?
Probably not. Ironic that I'm the first to delete things from articles for being too much detail. I've removed this detail and merged the sentence with the one following. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link PA system - Odd to me that suckh a system would be called public address when it's used for apparently private communication, but I see that's what the source says
Linked. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly why they say public, but that's what the source used. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Senate can be linked
Good catch. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...New York governor Malcolm Wilson... is a sea of blue. Suggest something like "...Malcom Wilson, then the governor of New York..."
I see what you mean about sea of blue. I could change it to "Despite a directive from Malcolm Wilson, the Governor of New York, in September of that year to reopen the bridge, the bankrupt Penn Central failed to do so." but I'm not a huge fan of how this sentence reads now. Would "Governor Malcom Wilson" with governor piped to Governor of New York work? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does "The bridge remained closed despite a directive to reopen it from Malcolm Wilson, the Governor of New York, later that year." sound? AviationFreak💬 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like that wording. Added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
department of transportation can be linked
Replaced with Connecticut Department of Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Connecticut Department of Transportation really ought to be linked
This has been done. Specifically where it just said "the state's department of transportation" I specified we are talking about CTDOT. No reason to link to both the concept of a department of transportation and specifically CTDOT in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. The first use of the phrase was lowercased when I reviewed and I figured you could link to both the concept and CTDOT if you wanted to. This works fine though and tbh I think most readers either know or can infer the function of a DOT as a concept. AviationFreak💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking Railroad ties
Linked at first mention in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Risley's Bridge is brought into the article without much context; if it is just a bridge in Berlin, CT, suggest just saying "a bridge"
I suppose naming the specific bridge isn't necessary. I've changed it to just "a bridge". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking trap rock
Linked. It's such a commonly known term in this area of CT that I forget it's not common in most places (fun fact, the image used in the trap rock article is in New Haven, Connecticut, but a few miles from Cedar Hill Yard). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...illegally disposing the mercury... -> "...illegally disposing of the mercury..."
Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest linking lead paint and asbestos
Both linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel in New York City would result in more usage of Cedar Hill Yard. - This probably needs attribution
One of the sources definitely directly makes this connection, I need to go through and check which one and then attribute it in-text. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Rail Freight In The Housatonic Region" reference is the one that gives this idea. On page 28 of the PDF: "Advocates for the project in Connecticut suggest that Cedar Hill Yard in North Haven is well positioned to provide intermodal services to take advantage of this new connection, as intermodal sites in New Jersey are operating at capacity, and there are limited sites in New York available for new facilities." I've added a citation from this to the following sentence, as it supports both sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about the bad experience at FAC earlier with this article. I had a similar experience; hope this nom goes better! AviationFreak💬 22:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak: Sorry for the delay in getting a loose end tied up. How does the article look now? Anything else you want me to work on? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Should just be one thing with the sea of blue left. AviationFreak💬 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Support on prose. AviationFreak💬 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

Reserving a spot. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 02:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for this somewhat personal quibble, but why not combine #Before 1900 and #1900 to 1917, and remove their headers so #History isn't just a hat? The labor disputes and crash described therein aren't described in the lead, so they may not require a header.
I have merged Before 1900 and 1900 to 1917 into one section. The labor disputes and crash aren't mentioned in the lead, but the construction of the original instance of the yard is, so I do not think removing the headers entirely is wise. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[..] and the NYNH&H's existing facilities and land in the area. Prior abbreviation of this railroad's name in the article was "the New Haven". Why use an acronym here?
Changed to "The New Haven". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[...] removing a long-standing bottleneck on the New Haven Railroad's system. Similar thing happening here.
While I can see not wanting to alternate between the spelled out words and the acronym, I don't see any harm in using "the New Haven" and "the New Haven Railroad" interchangeably. New Haven Railroad is used 15 times in the article and I think it's fine. Open to discussing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~[...] from cuts made elsewhere [...] Can a link be added here?~~
A link, like to Cut and fill? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That one or Cut (earthworks) would be good. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 01:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to Cut (earthworks) now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can After several years of construction, the new Cedar Hill Yard opened in 1920.[16][17] and As part of the yard's expansion, a new freight transfer station to handle less-than-car load freight was built, which opened in July 1920.[15] be merged? This would make the paragraph more immediately recognizable as the culmination of the previous; the first clause of the first highlighted sentence is also redundant.
Different parts of the yard opened at different times. The yard was fully completed in 1920, but construction had been ongoing for 3 years at that point and some portions were operational before 1920; this is detailed here. I have removed the redundant clause from the first sentence you mentioned and changed the wording a bit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[...] and the catenary in the yard dismantled. was dismantled.
Word added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~As of 2021, this line is operated by the Providence and Worcester. Add link.~~
Whoops, I didn't link it in the body until the second mention. Fixed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 17:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:New Haven Alcos at Cedar Hill 1949 postcard.jpg, File:New Haven EF4 locomotives at Cedar Hill Yard 1964 postcard.jpg — how is it known that the first publication of these images was without copyright notice?
User:Pi.1415926535, the uploader of these images, will likely have the answer to this question. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For postcards that aren't an obvious reprint of an earlier postcard, it's vanishingly rare for it not to have been the original publication. I can count on one hand the number of times I've found a postcard where the photo had been previously published. While it's difficult to perfectly eliminate any possibility of previous publication for any images under this license, I see no reason to suspect previous publication (and thus license issues) with these specific images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other image licensing looks ok (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Buidhe: - is this a passed image review? Hog Farm _Talk 04:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

Ref	Text cited	Probable ref text	Comments/Fixes
6	"In 1914, the New Haven added electrical catenary to the yard as part of its electrification program; operations with electric locomotives began in October of that year."	No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article	Nothing tying this event to 1914 or October
25	"Traffic was rerouted over alternate trestles until the repairs, estimated by a New Haven Railroad spokesperson to cost up to $100,000 (equivalent to $970,000 in 2020 dollars), could be completed"	No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article	Cite 25 was also used. From the AP; the wire service should be mentioned. Integrity good
4	"The strike came to an end on November 23."		I am paywalled out, but things seem good
42a	"Penn Central was merged into Conrail in 1976, along with many other bankrupt or troubled railroads in the Northeast, making Conrail the yard's new owner beginning in April."	"Since April, ConRail [...]"	Article does not mention the conrail creation
42c	"Conrail also rebuilt and reopened several tracks in the yard that had been out of service due to their unsafe condition, a consequence of deferred maintenance."		deferred maintenance is not mentioned
42d	"The railroad projected it would spend over $3 million (equivalent to $4,800,000 in 2021) on repairs between the two yards; Conrail's Northeast Region general manager told a local newspaper that "By the end of the year, 30,000 more ties will be installed in Cedar Hill and Hartford Yards and an additional 34 miles (55 km) of tracks surfaced".		Good
42e	"In August 1976, Cedar Hill averaged 34 TOFC loads per day, and Conrail projected this number to double upon the completion of a clearance raising project for Risley's Bridge in Berlin, Connecticut."		Good
8a	"The New Haven Railroad purchased approximately 500 acres (200 ha) of land in the Cedar Hill area in 1917 in order to construct a new classification yard."		Good
8b	"Construction began the same year."		Good
47	"With the line abandoned, the key link between Cedar Hill Yard and the rest of the country was severed."		I don't see a connection to the yard here

10% spotcheck --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into cite 6 which appears to have been an error on my part. The dates I listed are right, but I used the wrong cite to support them.
I actually am not sure where I got the October 1914 date from. I haven't been able to find a source that says exactly when it was completed, but I have a source in July 1915 that refers to the electrification in Cedar Hill Yard as "recently completed", so I have changed the text to say it was completed by July 1915. I also found construction on the electrical catenary began in 1913. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re cite 25, the Associated Press is already listed as the agency.
Re cite 42a, it's a pretty widely known fact that Conrail succeeded Penn Central but I will add a cite that directly states this.
This has been done. The existing "Conrail at 40" reference supports this and I have added it next to cite 42a. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re cite 42c, it is true that deferred maintenance is not directly mentioned but it's a pretty obvious conclusion based on the information within the source in question. I could remove the deferred maintenance part of the sentence but that would also remove context (that being the New Haven and Penn Central didn't properly maintain the yard due to financial problems).
Re cite 47, it is true the source does not directly make the connection. The preceding parts of the article however do illustrate that the bridge and the Maybrook Line were of importance to Cedar Hill Yard. I believe there are one or two existing sources which also directly make the connection between the bridge being abandoned and a decline in traffic at Cedar Hill Yard, I will take a closer look and add an appropriate citation here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "Rail Lawyer predicts fight over freight" source directly links the closing of the Poughkeepsie Bridge to Cedar Hill Yard. I've added it here to supplement citation 47. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guerillero, how is this looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gog the Mild, I spoke with Guerillero offwiki earlier today and he informed me he is busy irl and probably won't be able to get to this for at least a week. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref	Text cited	Probable ref text	Comments/Fixes
59	"The yard contains a TRANSFLO bulk cargo transfer terminal which handles transloading."	Map	Map dosen't load for me in FireFox because they are loading http things on an https site and there is no way to grabbing the http version. I am going to AGF here
36	"The New Haven's initial decision not to replace the damaged bridge resulted in criticism; a union observer testified to the Connecticut public utilities commission that delays from the damaged bridge resulted in train crews and locomotives spending hours at a time idling, an expense the financially troubled railroad could ill afford."		good
22	"The massive yards had a capacity of over 15,000 railroad cars."		good

Support passes my source check and the prose is high quality --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough I can't get the map to load either. The Transflo location can be seen at this link and is also shown on this map from 2021. This article discusses an addition to the terminal at the yard. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support from Lee Vilenski

As I commented and supported on the original FAC for my usual MOS and Prose fixes, I'm still happy with how this is. I'm happy to support the nomination on the previso that Guerillero is happy with the article and any previous issues with close paraphrasing/sourcing is no longer an issue. In terms of the article's quality, I have no additional issues. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Are you happy to commit to a full support now? Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If G is happy, so am I. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Gog the Mild and Hog Farm: how is this candidate looking now? I don't mean to rush you, but I'd like to get this finalized before the end of the current WikiCup round as it would be the difference between my being eliminated or not. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 22:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.