Talk:Valley Falls train collision

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:Valley Falls train collision/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 21:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 20:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, very close to GA. Just a few minor corrections and some suggestions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox and lede

• Link daguerreotype in the caption
• Add alt text for images
• Comma in the second sentence should be a semicolon.
• I'd add a sentence about what happened in the collision (the trains involved, etc) to the first paragraph.

  All of these items done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Incident

• Do any of the sources mention how many cars were on the southbound train?

  Eight cars. Mentioned in the prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

• I would recommend left-aligning these images. Having them with the text (rather than pushed below the infobox) is more important than any potential sandwiching.

  Fair enough, done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• I recommend adding {{inflation}} for the half-million cost.

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Any information on when the double tracking was completed?

  The last section between Providence and Worcester was completed in 1885, though the work did begin shortly after the accident. I can't say when the section in question was double-tracked, though we would logically assume it would be one of the first locations to be addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm doubtful of the claim that the P&W had the first electronic signal system in the US. The Fitchburg Cutoff had track circuits installed in 1876, and several other lines shortly thereafter. Perhaps this was the first of a specific signal system type - are there any further details in the source?

  I'm in the middle of a move at the moment (going back to Connecticut) and I don't have the book in question with me right now. For the time being I'm just going to remove the "first" claim from the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

References

• Source 6 is weirdly formatted, and the publisher shouldn't just be the website url.

  I just removed it entirely. It was present from before I expanded the article, and the Train Wrecks book covers everything in that paragraph. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Source 8 has an inconsistent date format.

  Addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Sources 7 and 9 are duplicates and should be merged with {{rp}} for pagination

  Given we are only talking about 3 pages in the book, I just merged the references entirely and didn't worry about reference pages. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Add an external links section for the commonscat link

  Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Not a GA issue, but looks like the link to this article in the bottom navbox should be corrected.

  Good catch, I renamed the article and didn't remember the navbox. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Overall

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Great job - passing now! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 20:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

1853 daguerreotype of the collision

• ... that the Valley Falls train collision in 1853 was one of the earliest train wrecks ever photographed? Source: Reed, Robert (1968). Train Wrecks: A Pictorial History of Accidents on the Main Line. Seattle: Superior Pub. Co. pp. 20–21. Also verified by Heppner, Frank H. (2012). Railroads of Rhode Island: shaping the Ocean State's railways. Charleston, South Carolina: History Press. p. 78
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Joel Ross (vibraphonist)
  • Comment: Due to the recent controversy over "first" or "earliest" hooks, I have adopted the wording "one of the earliest".

Improved to Good Article status by Trainsandotherthings (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 30 past nominations.

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC).

• Article was promoted to GA status on time and I did not find any close paraphrasing. QPQ has been done. Since I can't access either source for the hook I'd like to at least see a quote or excerpt that discusses the hook. As for the hook itself, while it meets WP:DYKINT, the footnote supporting it comes at the end of the paragraph where the sentence is rather than the end of the sentence itself. In addition, the hook and the article do not match: the hook says "one of the earliest" but the article outright says "believed to be the first." I understand this is because of the recent issues with "first" hooks, but as it stands, the article cannot run unless that is resolved first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't have access to Train Wrecks right now as I'm in the middle of a move. Heppner says "This was the first train wreck ever to be photographed and printed in a newspaper". I have added an inline cite at the end of the sentence. This is kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation - if we try and run the hook as stated in the sources and article, it will almost certainly be challenged. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the circumstances of the nomination I'm pinging some of the commentors in the recent "first" hooks discussion such as @RoySmith, SL93, and Schwede66: for advice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

My usual litmus test for "first" hooks is whether there's a finite set of things, making it possible to definitively order them and see which was first. For example, we can be pretty sure George Washington was indeed the first president of the United States; even the most skeptical of us should be willing to accept that there wasn't one before him that we just somehow haven't found yet in a google search. In this case, photography had only existed for about 20 years when this crash happened. The window of when an earlier photo might have been taken is thus limited, so at least this seems likely to be true. On general principles, however, I think we should say "believed to be" or something like that. FWIW, I found mention of this in the George Eastman House 2008 Annual Report which says "[Train wreck on the Providence Worcester Railroad near to Pawtucket], August 12, 1853. Attributed to L. Wright. Daguerreotype. so there may be some uncertainty about the photographer's identity. RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow the last point. Both the link and the source I use in the article attribute the photograph to L. Wright. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I generally interpret the phrase "attributed to" to indicate a degree of uncertainty. Thus Read my lips: no new taxes says, "Read my lips: no new taxes" is a phrase spoken by American presidential candidate George H. W. Bush. There's no doubt in anybody's mind that he said it. Millions of people watched him say it live on TV and we've got it on videotape to go back and verify. But Gospel of Matthew says The gospel is traditionally attributed to the Apostle Matthew because we're not 100% sure. I think the same thing is going on here; the Eastman folks believe Wright took the image, but they apparently have enough uncertainty about it that they felt the needs to hedge in their statement. RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand now. So what we know without a doubt is this collision happened and it was photographed. Photography was very much an emerging technology at this point so I think this is almost certainly one of the first train collisions ever photographed, if not the first. Railroads as we know them only really emerged around 1830 with the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and the Daguerreotype was invented in 1839. It's difficult to definitively prove this was the first photo, but it was almost certainly one of the earliest. The question is how do we word this in the article and in the hook. An ALT1 about the emergence of a very early form of a coordinated time/time zone in the aftermath of this wreck is also possible, as that is somewhat easier to verify. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: As this is your nomination, you will know the contents of this article better than a reviewer. I suggest that you propose an ALT1 along with what you suggest above, or several ALTs, so the reviewer can determine the most interesting ones. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

ALT1: ...that the Valley Falls train collision in 1853 led to the creation of the first time zone in the United States? Source: America's First Time Zone, the Harvard Gazette "That first voluntary time agreement among the railroads became mandatory a few years later, after an 1853 wreck occurred outside Pawtucket, R.I., on a blind curve known as the Boston Switch...After that, railroad time was mandated along the region’s tracks...The result of all this, said Galison and Schechner, was America’s first time zone" Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Given the brouhaha about "first" hooks, we will need a much stronger source for the "first time zone" option, or perhaps a revised version that isn't as strong about it being a "first". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It's still interesting if we drop "first". Bremps... 03:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

The issue is really how to present the hook. We've had issues over "first" hooks for a long while, so if it really is the first we have to be sure that it's right. Otherwise, finding a compromise wording is tricky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what to say. It feels like no matter what I try it always gets shot down. Am I supposed to make the article worse to get a hook through DYK? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Most certainly not, Trainsandotherthings. Some articles just don't fit DYK, whether they're on CTOPs or, like this, contain details which have too high a risk of getting pulled up on at WP:ERRORS, or they're on BLPs about whom all coverage is negative, or... you get the picture. If this nom has to be rejected—well, it has a lot of company, so please don't feel singled out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not a BLP. This is not a contentious topic. This is simply arcane DYK rules at work, and a perfect example of why I've largely stopped participating in DYK. It's fine, though, bad actors like Coldwell can get through DYK 500 times in a row. I am well aware that some article are not good fits for DYK because I have had the self-awareness to not nominate a good number of articles that were in theory DYK eligible based on newness and length. However, this nomination has been me trying to come up with ideas and everyone else (besides Bremps) shooting them down. Meanwhile people spend months workshopping the most boring articles laying out 20 alts just to get them past the finish line. Tell me, is this article really unfit for DYK, or are there simply too many arbitrary rules, written and unwritten, that act like invisible tripwires? I could write a hook about the collision being caused by the conductor's watch being off by two minutes right? Or is that violating some other unwritten rule? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that the Valley Falls train collision in 1853 led to the creation of a time zone?--Launchballer 06:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably the safest option so far. It still says a time zone was created without directly claiming it to be the first time zone in the US. The nuance is lost of course, but given the brouhaha over "first" hooks it's probably for the best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea; I think it's hooky. User:Trainsandotherthings Any thoughts, as the original author of the article? Bremps... 01:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

• @Trainsandotherthings: As the nomination is now two months old and remains unapproved, please respond as soon as possible. The nomination may be marked for closure per WP:DYKTIMEOUT. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  Let's go with the proposed hook. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. This is ready to be signed off. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bremps and AirshipJungleman29: Do you see no more article issues? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

As neither has responded and this is already eligible for timeout, I'm going ahead and giving this the tick. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)