Talk:Fore River Railroad

Requested move 31 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Fore River Transportation Corporation → Fore River Railroad – Per MOS:COMMONNAME. Even the MWRA, which owns the railroad, uses the name Fore River Railroad. Ronald Dale Karr's The Rail Lines of Southern New England also uses "Fore River Railroad", as do several other sources. The current operator is formally named Fore River Transportation Corporation, but de facto it is largely known under the Fore River Railroad name. I cannot boldly make this move as the redirect has a few minor edits in its history. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above 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 Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fore River Railroad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 05:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hiya—I'll get to this tomorrow! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

All done; over to you! This article in particular is fantastic; I had a very few concerns—nice work as always. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 15:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice work! Pleased now to pass this article for GA status. Congrats! ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 16:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio

Earwig says good to go.

Files

All images are of acceptable quality and copyright-free: File:Fore River Railroad locomotive at Braintree Yard, August 2018.JPG is CC-BY-SA and File:GENERAL VIEW OF SHIPYARD - General Dynamics Corporation Shipyard, 97 East Howard Street, Quincy, Norfolk County, MA.tif (never seen .tif before! :0) has a valid public domain rationale.

Prose

• In the lead, I would wikilink sewage sludge as you do so for the body.

  Good catch, link added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Do the sources say when the shipyard was built?

  MWRA's website says 1900, added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• "In response, Watson decided to build his own railroad, and a route from the shipyard to the South Shore Railroad line was identified." – nit-picky but recommend "In response, Watson decided to build his own railroad, identifying a route that connected the shipyard to the South Shore Railroad line." as IMO and is used quite a few times in the previous paragraph.

  Works for me, changed as suggested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• "and electrification added to the north portion of the Fore River Railroad" – recommend "and electrification was added to the north portion of the Fore River Railroad" as the wording coupled with the first and third sentences confused me initially.

  Word added as suggested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• "While its primary purpose for existing was gone," – how about "had diminished" instead?

  My concern with this change is the shipyard was indeed the sole reason the railroad was built. Other customers that eventually started getting rail service happened later on. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• "In 1991 the MWRA" – comma for consistency with the lead and 1,000 carloads sentence.

  Comma added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

References

• Ref 6 needs an access date.

  Access date added, I picked today because I visited the URL to confirm it is live. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Passes spotcheck—refs 1; 3; 6 good to go.

The discussion above 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.

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 Edge3 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Fore River Railroad was bought by Massachusetts Water Resources Authority in order to clean pollution from the Boston Harbor? Source: Karr, Ronald Dale (2017). The Rail Lines of Southern New England (2nd ed.). Pepperell, Massachusetts: Branch Line Press. pp. 387–390. ISBN 978-0-942147-12-4. OCLC 1038017689.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Concerto Barocco

Improved to Good Article status by Trainsandotherthings (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 23:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Fore River Railroad; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will start this review and post my updates here. Ktin (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Very nice article. Clean and crisp. No concerns on eligibility. Earwig checks out. Please can I request the nominator to paste the exact text that exists in the book for me to validate? If the book is not available digitally, I am happy to mark this as WP:AGF. Handing this back to the nominator. @Onegreatjoke and Trainsandotherthings: Ktin (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• The book is not available digitally. I can't say that I'm thrilled someone else took an article I did all the work on and nominated it without even telling me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Trainsandotherthings: Is there any chance you could type out the sentence (as a reply to this comment, perhaps) as it is written in the book? I will use that to validate the blurb here. Also, re: your second statement, is there something that you'd want me to do? I will admit, I do not know the procedural steps on that front. Were you thinking of an alternate blurb? Let me know at your convenience. cc @Onegreatjoke:. Ktin (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Can't you just AGF and have it done with? Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• The required quote was provided at WT:DYK#Need some guidance on WP:AGF: "In 1987 General Dynamics finally found a buyer - the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) which was looking for land to use in conjunction with the $6 billion Boston Harbor cleanup project", so we're obviously good there. But may I suggest a tweak to the hook:

ALT1: ... that the Fore River Railroad was bought by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority as part of a project to clean up the Boston Harbor?

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

A good discussion at WT:DYK#Need_some_guidance_on_WP:AGF. Text from offline source was provided by the original editor. Provided text matched the text provided by uninvolved editor user:Mx. Granger. The updated blurb provided by user:RoySmith looks good. Added an article "the". With all of this the nomination is approved. Thank you. Ktin (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)