Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Branford Steam Railroad/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2022 [1].

---

Branford Steam Railroad

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a short (about 6 miles in length) industrial railroad in Connecticut with a surprisingly long and storied history. The Branford Steam Railroad started operations in 1903 to carry passengers to a trotting park for horses. Within a decade, it transformed into an industrial shortline hauling trap rock from quarries. The company has hauled trap rock from the same quarry since 1914 to today, and plans are that it will continue this task for at least the next 200 years. The "Steam Railroad" has not used steam locomotives since 1960, but the seemingly absurd name is necessary since the Branford Electric Railway also exists to this day as a museum preserving streetcars. I completely rewrote this article in October 2021, and have made a few further improvements since then. Following the promotion of my first FA last month, I would like to see this little known railroad become a featured article as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Performing source spot-check at FAC's talk page, for this article version. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Round-up: Spotted some cases of original synthesis, but nothing too serious. Please give page numbers to newspaper source, as finding the passage can be pretty difficult without it. Will check one or two more frequently cited source later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• What does "exchanges freight" mean?

  Ah, that's one of the sentences I didn't rewrite when I redid the article last year. This is referring to Interchange (freight rail), where rail cars are transferred from one railroad company to another for continued transport. BSRR rail cars are transferred to the Providence and Worcester Railroad which runs dedicated trains to Fresh Pond Junction near New York City. At the docks, the BSRR transfers much of the trap rock from the quarry to barges. I have revised the article to state this information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• It seems a little strange that the lead states neither the length nor the gauge of the railway. It may also be helpful to overtly state that it is still running.

  I can specify standard gauge, but as 99% of U.S. railroads are standard gauge, it's usually assumed. I note that AirTrain JFK, a FA, does not mention the gauge in the lead, likely for this reason. The gauge is listed in the infobox. I have added the length to the lead section. That the line is still running is established by the use of "is" rather than "was" and the lead being in present tense. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The infobox should only contain information already in the main article. It states that the track is standard gauge and gives the measurements for this, but I can't see this in the article. Have I read past it?

To me, this is akin to saying in every article on a U.S. highway "traffic drives on the right". I feel it is wholly unnecessary, per WP:BLUESKY. And most every FA on a railroad or rail line I can find does things the same way I have here. Consider the featured articles City and South London Railway, Eastern Suburbs & Illawarra Line, South Lake Union Streetcar, MAX Orange Line, MAX Yellow Line, MAX Red Line, Brill Tramway, Hastings line, Line 1 (Sound Transit), Manila Light Rail Transit System, Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel, and Great North of Scotland Railway, all of which follow the same practice as I have here. To explicitly state the gauge in the article's prose would be going against best practice for articles on railroads, and indeed you often won't really find sources explicitly stating the line is standard gauge because all commercial railroads in the United States and Canada are standard gauge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You give the precise dimensions of the track in the infobox. This is not something you can expect a normal reader to know, it is not BLUESKY. It needs to be in the article.

So you think all of those FAs are wrong then? It's standard gauge. Every single common carrier railroad in the U.S. is standard gauge. Again, I unfortunately cannot give you a source that says "the Branford Steam Railroad is standard gauge" because it's assumed in all sources that, just like every other railroad in the U.S., the tracks are standard gauge. I've checked through all the sources on the company's founding and construction and opening, and none of them mention the gauge. If I put the gauge in the body, then I'd, technically speaking, be violating the FA criteria for it not having a citation. I don't know what you want me to do here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing technical about it. Leaving aside the fact that there should be nothing in the infobox that isn't in the article, you are telling me that "4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge" is in the article because you assume that this is the case. It's a nice article and I really don't want to oppose so please find a way round this OR. If "all commercial railroads in the United States and Canada are standard gauge" then source that and I'm happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Butting in a bit - I have this on my watchlist intending to review but have just been lazy about it. This source covers the standardization across North America, which happened during the 1800s and has remained consistent ever since. Per Track gauge in the United States, all commercial railroads in the US converted to standard gauge following the Pacific Railroad Acts of the 1860s, and per Track gauge in Canada and the report "The Rise and Fall of the Provincial Gauge" (not linked because the URL is like forty miles long, but first result on Google), basically every Canadian railway had converted by 1881. Given the level of standardization, I have to agree with TAOT here that detailing the dimensions of the gauge is unnecessary and I think calling it original research is unfair. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As PMC has said here, calling listing the gauge of the railroad "original research" is inappropriate and wrong. If you seriously think this is worth opposing over, that's certainly your prerogative, but I'd be seriously disappointed in you. I'm not going to remove the gauge information, that only makes the article worse for the reader. Hell, I'll say I'm invoking WP:IAR here - it's blatantly obvious what the gauge of the line is, and opposing over me not having a source that explicitly states the gauge, even when it's extremely obvious, seems spurious to me. In my view, there's a clear WP:EDITCONSENSUS that gauge information doesn't need to be cited when the railroad in question is in a country that has one gauge near universally, based on what I've listed previously. But again, you're well within your rights to oppose if that's how you feel about the situation. I believe I have done my best to respond to and address your concerns, even when I've personally disagreed with them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Please drop the stick, AGF and work with me here. The information in question is not the slightest bit obvious to me, nor I am sure to the vast majority of readers. You can't have information stated as fact in an FA which is not cited. PMC seems to have supplied sources which will address my concern - note my comment in my last post "If "all commercial railroads in the United States and Canada are standard gauge" then source that and I'm happy." And, frankly, I refuse to believe that there is no HQ RS in existence which gives the dimensions of US standard gauge - are you telling me that that is the case? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Gog, I'm not sure what you mean with your last sentence. The source I provided gives the dimensions for standard gauge on its first page in both metric and imperial. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine. I don't have access to it, so didn't know. Assuming that it also clearly states that all US commercial tracks are of this gauge then there is no sourcing problem. A sentence or two in the main article, citing this, will resolve the issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

JSTOR should let you see the first page of most things even if you're not logged in, if you're concerned about checking the source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I happy to AGF, but if there is not some movement soon towards settling this I may have to conclude that "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate" is not being met. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

My grandmother died, excuse me for not editing for a few days. I will look into the rest of this throughout the remainder of this week and this weekend. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I have added a sentence about track gauge with citations. I actually did this on August 4th but forgot to mention it here. As if this week weren't bad enough I also caught Covid... Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Aw heck Trainsandotherthings, you are having a rough time lately. Happy to support, a fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• "built an extension from the BSRR's northern terminus". "BSRR" - see MOS:ACRO1STUSE.

  Abbreviation now introduced at the first mention of Branford Steam Railroad in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Events outside of the area set in motion the line's conversion to an industrial railroad hauling rock." I don't see that this adds anything, and suggest deletion.

  Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Fisk initially responded to this demand by opening a quarry at Pine Orchard in January 1902." How is this connected to the BSRR?

  That really belongs in an article about Fisk (which I plan to write one day), not this article. I've removed it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "another railroad, known as the Damascus Railroad, which built an extension". You have the railroad doing the building. Suggest rephrasing.

  I don't see an issue with this sentence. The railroad did indeed build the extension. It seems pointless in my opinion to instead say "the workers of the Damascus Railroad built an extension". This type of wording, saying X was built by a railroad company, is pretty standard for rail articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. As you say "X was built by a railroad company". If by Damascus Railroad you mean a company called this, say so. Perhaps 'another company, known as the Damascus Railroad'?

Wording is now "On July 18, 1905, Fisk received a charter for another railroad company, known as the Damascus Railroad, which built an extension from the BSRR's northern terminus to North Branford." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Fine.

• "a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter allowing it to expand further into North Branford". "expand" seems an odd thing for a railroad to do. Perhaps 'extend'?

  No objection to changing to extend. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• "where he planned to open a quarry." Suggest "a" → 'the'.

  Good catch, changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• "and advocated for support from the town's residents for the railroad extension, finding most residents supportive. Despite local support". "... support ... supportive ... support". Perhaps a bit of variation?

  Wording changed. In order, I have now used "support", "in favor", and "local enthusiasm". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• "to exercise eminent domain". Could we have an in line explanation per "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so" in MOS:LINKSTYLE.

  I thought the concept of eminent domain was a fairly well known thing, but I've added an inline description regardless. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

In the US I imagine it is reasonably broadly understood. Outside perhaps mostly by lawyers.

• "pronounced the bill as legal". This may be a USEng thing, but in BritEng this would read better without the "as".

  I think your suggested wording is better, actually. Changed accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• "allowing the modified charter to take effect." What modification?

  This is discussed in the previous paragraph. "In March 1907, Fisk applied for a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter allowing it to expand further into North Branford, where he planned to open a quarry." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "While the Damascus Railroad allowed Fisk to expand rail operations northward". Don't you mean "Damascus Railroad" → 'new charter'?

  Changed to "While the modified Damascus Railroad charter allowed Fisk to expand rail operations northward". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Fisk applied for a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter"; "the Branford Steam Railroad would apply for an amendment to its charter". Exactly which body was chartered?

  Both were chartered. In the earlier days of railroads in the U.S., railroad companies were required to obtain a charter from the legislature(s) of the state(s) they served before they could start construction or operation. The BSRR was chartered first, on March 19, 1903. The Damascus Railroad, a separate company, was chartered on July 18, 1905. Fisk was heavily involved with both companies, and in 1909 the Damascus Railroad came under the control of the Branford Steam Railroad. While nominally independent, the Damascus Railroad was always directly dependent on the Branford Steam Railroad, its only connection to the national rail network. The charters laid out what each company could and could not do (the Branford Steam Railroad's charter authorized it to haul both passengers and freight, while the Damascus Railroad's charter specifically only authorized the transport of freight). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• "along with improved interchange facilities with the New Haven Railroad." This is the first mention of the New Haven Railroad and of interchange facilities. Perhaps they could be explained earlier? Ie, prior to improvement.

  The New Haven Railroad is the same as the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad; the name "The New Haven" is commonly used to refer to it. I have mentioned this at the first mention of the company's full name in the body.

• "allow the Branford Steam Railroad to assume control of the Damascus Railroad by purchasing its stock." Could you clarify throughout the article when you are using a term to describe a physical structure, eg a railroad, and when an incorporated body, eg a company.

  I'm not really seeing any issue here. In the sentence you've quoted here, it's pretty clear at least to me that the Branford Steam Railroad (the company) would be taking control of the Damascus Railroad (the company). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I found myself repeatedly having to reread sentences or paragraphs to work out what was being referred to. Using the same term to describe different things and expecting a reader to work it out from context is confusing.

I have modified a few sentences to attempt to address your concern. Please let me know your thoughts and if there's still issues, identify the sentences in question directly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• "By April 29, 1909, the General Assembly approved". "By" - is the precise date not known?

  I checked the 1909 edition of Special Acts and Resolutions Passed by the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, which confirms the precise date is April 29, 1909. Not sure why I said "by" but I have modified the text accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• "the General Assembly approved", 1. The general assembly of what? 2. What is a General Assembly? 3. Why the upper case initial letters?

  The Connecticut General Assembly is Connecticut's state legislature. The upper case letters are necessary as it is a proper noun. I've linked it, and specifically said "but in December 1902, Fisk petitioned the Connecticut General Assembly, the state's legislative branch, for permission to convert the railroad to steam power." now so it's clear what is being referred to. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• "by crossing most streets at grade". Possibly this is clear to US readers. It isn't elsewhere. What does "at grade" mean?

  This wording is used extensively in the sources I am using. In the U.S., we use the term grade crossing, which in British English is known as a level crossing. The phrase "at grade" is apparently specific to North America, and is defined as "on the same level". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This needs explaining in the article.

I don't really think it's necessary, but I've added it since you insist. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• "intersect with a diamond crossing". Is it possible t explain what a diamond crossing is in line?

  Realizing now that link is a redirect to double junction and doesn't do a good job explaining what a diamond crossing is. Definition added, though it's a commonly understood term as far as railroads go. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• "something the Branford Steam Railroad was strongly opposed to." Why?

  The source says it "would involve serious complications unnecessary inconvenience and expense." That was the ruling of the Connecticut Railroad Commission. I know the BSRR was also opposed to this happening, for similar reasons (pretty obvious considering Fisk repeatedly fought the Shore Line Railroad). There was also a law on the books in Connecticut (for all I know, it might still be in effect) prohibiting any crossings between steam railroads and electric railroads, for safety reasons. I've changed the wording a bit here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Link "injunction".

  Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "and again obtained an injunction forcing the Shore Line to cease construction". Is it known when?

  The article in The Day says that the injunction was prepared on a hurry call from Fisk and was served around 4 AM on February 5. I've added detail on this to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• "construction, which had begun in earnest on the night of February 5." This may fit more naturally into the previous sentence.

  Agreed, done as part of my remedy to your previous comment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• "As such, the Connecticut Superior Court ordered". I am not sure what "As such" adds - or even means.

  The Superior Court was enforcing the ruling of the Supreme Court. Open to a different way to word this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  I've changed the wording here now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Optional: it would be helpful to be told what "trap rock" was and how it was used.

  Now defined at first mention in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• "for the construction of the nearby Lake Gaillard." Just checking that the spur was constructed so that a lake could be built?

  Yes. Lake Gaillard is an artificial lake, which was built to serve as a large water reservoir (and continues to serve this purpose today). It's over a mile wide and a mile and a half long. It took 7 years of construction to be completed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• "A number of locomotives were used within the 300-acre (120 ha) quarry complex." What/which quarry complex?

  The Totoket Mountain quarry, which the Damascus Railroad had its charter modified to connect to. I say in the body, "The quarry quickly grew, soon becoming the primary customer of the Branford Steam Railroad." Indeed, it is now the one and only customer of the railroad. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I think it was the plural in "committed $750,000 to develop quarries" which threw me.

• "with fronting 1.25 miles (2.01 km) in length." What is fronting?

  I haven't been able to find a good definition of this. I was using the term used in the source here. I've removed it as I can't clearly explain what the source is claiming. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

'with the quarry rockface being worked extending 1.25 miles'?

I'm a little skeptical of the source, so I've decided it's best not to include the information at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Ownership of the company changed several times". Which company? (Quarry or railroad?)

  Both. They have been owned by the same companies ever since the New Haven Trap Rock Company came about. Today, the Branford Steam Railroad and the quarry are both wholly owned by Tilcon Connecticut. Wording revised to "Ownership of both the Branford Steam Railroad and the quarry changed several times..." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• There seem to be an excessive number of very short paragraphs.

  I've combined as many as I could. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: I've responded to every comment now, let me know your thoughts when you get a chance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have come back on some of your responses above. If I haven't commented, I am happy with your response or change. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Support by David Fuchs

Review in progress, will be posting in the next 72 hours or so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Sorry for the delays, ended up starting the review on another machine. Some initial thoughts:

• Prose/General:
  • I went through and performed some line edits, mostly focusing on reducing some redundancies and improving flow.
  • One part I found myself wondering that isn't addressed by the article—why was there a change in the Branford railroad's use, and why did he create two separate railroads and then sell one to the other?

    It's a matter of charters. The Branford Steam Railroad was chartered to be built on a certain route and carry certain traffic. Strictly speaking, Fisk could have sought to modify the BSRR's charter to get authorization to extend the line instead of chartering a new company; as far as I can tell the reason he chose the latter is lost to history. The change in use is because of the increased demand for Connecticut traprock, and the railroad was perfectly positioned to transport this rock from quarries to connections with the rest of the region. The passenger service was a short-lived thing, it ended within a decade after the BSRR's founding. I'm hoping to write a biography of Fisk at some point which might fill in some of these gaps. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Agree with the above that stuff not in the article body definitely needs to be referenced in the infobox; railroad gauges are not always the same and are otherwise not general knowledge, and thus I don't think BLUESKY applies. Also unreferenced in the length.

    I don't have a source specifically stating "the Branford Steam Railroad is standard gauge" for reasons I've gone into previously. The length however I will find a citation for. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

    Length is now cited (and it turns out I had the number off by a mile, at least according to the CT State Rail Plan). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Media:
  • Images would be more helpful to vision-impaired readers with alt text (MOS:ACCIM)
    • I don't think I'm great at writing alt text, but I have given it my best attempt. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Images appropriately licensed and verified, no fair-use or non-free imagery.
  • As a matter of aesthetic taste, and not policy, is there a better image of the railroad than File:Branford Steam over CT 80 085.JPG? It's oddly framed so that the edge of a parking lot is super-prominent, and you barely see the tracks themselves.

    What I have to work with is here: [2]. There aren't really any great photos of the railroad that are freely licensed, but if something in the Commons cat strikes you as a better choice I'm all ears. If we wanted a photo of a BSRR train, I'd have to go take a photo of the railroad myself, which isn't easy as I now live in Rhode Island, not Connecticut. Most railfans hate releasing images with compatible licensing. Believe me, I checked high and wide to try and find better photos. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Surprised there's not a map of the route. Unless you're a New Englander you probably don't know where Branford actually is.

    I could do a pushpin map like the one on Cedar Hill Yard, though this is a six mile long rail line, not a fixed point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• References:
  • Checklinks shows two reference links that should get updated if possible.[3]
    • Both addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • References need checking for consistency in formatting and fields (for example some places the dates are written out, elsewhere they're YYYY-MM-DD.)

    I added the "use dmy dates" template which should fix this, but I'll take a closer look as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Will be doing a source check.
    • Overall, I think the sourcing is fine; a lot of material is to smaller newspapers of the day but I don't see evidence there's better sourcing available in my own search. One source I do have more qualms with is Ref 24[4]— it's basically an editorial in a local newsletter, and doesn't feel like it's strong enough to be used. Otherwise spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 20, 28, 31.
      • 28 is used to source "Ownership of both the Branford Steam Railroad and the quarry changed several times, without much effect on operations. In 1984, it was acquired by Tilcon Inc., which renamed itself Tilcon Connecticut in 1990.", but the source given says the company that became Tilcon acquired the Trap Rock company in the 1970s (1984's entry is just "Sold to British Tire and Rubber Co.".)
      • Otherwise did not spot issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the source review. As you said above, there's not really much sourcing beyond to local newspapers. I'm not really concerned with their reliability for the most part. Perhaps because it's rather obscure, there isn't much coverage of the railroad in books. My copy of The Rail Lines of Southern New England, basically my bible for most train articles in the region, sources its coverage on the BSRR partially to this very Wikipedia article, unlike most of the book which cites reliable sources. I have removed 28, which unfortunately means I had to remove everything it supported as well. I was a little leery of the source's reliability myself but couldn't find anything better.
        • Regarding ownership, what I've pieced together is that Ashland purchased NHTRC in 1968, purchased Angelo Tomasso Inc in 1972, and then formed "NHTR Tomasso" as a combination of the two companies. Thomas Tilling Ltd. purchased Ashland's operations in the Northeastern United States in 1979, and British Tire and Rubber Co. bought NHTR Tomasso in 1984. CHR bought Tilcon (renamed from Angelo Tomasso in 1990) in 1996, and is the current owner of Tilcon and by extension the BSRR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I believe I've responded to all your initial comments, let me know your thoughts when you have a chance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @David Fuchs:, how does the source review stand, and do you have any comments you feel are not resolved? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe that addresses my issues. Supporting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Support from PMC

Putting my name here to make an actual commitment to commenting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Founding

• Not a hill I'll die on, but the thing about Fisk's middle initial feels like it should be a footnote rather than a comment in a reference. Honestly since a few references use his full name (such as ref 18) I'm not sure this is even needed.

  Yeah, that's something which was present before I started working on the article. Agree it's not really necessary, removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Any utility in the photos of the driving park and some random train from here, or the photos here? I only ask since the first half of the article is a bit bare, photo-wise.

  I'm impressed you were able to find a photo of the driving park with a train. I've added that to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  I enjoy digging up obscure things. Glad it was of use! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I redirected horse-powered railroad to horsecar and linked it in-text since it's a curiosity worth clicking on.

  Sounds good to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Damascus Railroad & Expansion

• Why is Damascus Railroad bolded here?

  In my head the reason I bolded it was because, technically, this article is about both the Branford Steam Railroad and the Damascus Railroad. The latter is a subtopic of the former. I don't feel strongly about this and can remove it if you'd believe it would be better that way. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's just odd to have it bolded in the body and not in the lead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  It is now bold in the lead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Not a hill I'll die on, but not sure the subsection header is needed here since the overall section isn't that long.

  I'm not sure how I feel. I added it to show that the subsection is distinct from what's discussed previously. But I know editors have different practices as to how much they utilize subheaders, I find I often lean towards using them more often than some do. Don't feel super strongly about it but I'd say I lean towards keeping it as it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Works for me ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• That whole second to last paragraph under Expansion cracks me up, it's so 1900s. A mustache-twirling captain of industry marshalling a small army of dudes to fuck over another captain of industry, suits flying back and forth, an entire police force getting involved... it's fun.

  Yeah, it was quite something to read about when I was doing research. Though it's worth noting Branford's police force was 3 people at the time, it's still quite silly. And while the Shore Line Electric Railway has been gone for a very long time, the Branford Steam Railroad persists doing the exact same thing today as it did 100 years ago. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

New Haven

• By 1917, Fisk had divested his share of the quarry...: was NHTRC operating the BSRR at that time? Did he also divest his interest in the railroad? (This may be answered later, idk)

  This is an area that's somewhat unclear, when exactly the transition in ownership happened. I have not located an exact source documenting Fisk leaving the company, and the Steamtown ref says as much, that this is only inferred by him eventually no longer being listed as involved with the company. I did find that his name came up under a new electric railroad at roughly the same time his name disappeared from the BSRR, so added that to the article at the urging of the reviewer back when this article was at GAN. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, okay. We can only know so much, I guess. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  I see the updates to the article today! Nice find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• I noticed that although the lead mentions it, the article doesn't never explicitly says the NHTRC started operating the railroad - I could be crazy.

  It's unclear when exactly the transition happened. The Branford Steam Railroad was and is its own company, but today it's a subsidiary of Tilcon, and it was at some point a NHTRC subsidiary. Some of these details we may never get concrete answers for. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  The lead explicitly says "New Haven Trap Rock Company, which became operator of both the quarry and the Branford Steam Railroad". Even if we can't be specific with dates etc in the body due to source limitations, we should still echo the lead in saying that the Trap Rock company started operating the railroad at some point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  Per above, this has been resolved by way of those changes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

  After some digging, it turns out Fisk actually sold the railroad and quarry in 1914, and the New Haven Trap Rock Company became the owner. This is now specified in both the body and lead. Haven't been able to figure out why he abruptly sold off his interests in both, but that's what the sources say. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Further to this, if the NHTRC is operating the BSRR, is the BSRR properly a customer, or is it more like a subsidiary?

  I guess it's kind of semantics here. I use the term customer to refer to essentially anything served by the railroad. The railroad's sole 'customer' in this sense is of course the quarry. But yes, at this point the BSRR was indeed a subsidiary of the NHTRC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't sure if it was a railroad-specific jargony usage of customer. I see what you mean though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• "was instead the president" sounds odd. "Had become president of," maybe, or "had assumed the presidency of"? Even "was now the president of"?

  Changed to "and had become president of". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Dieselization & rest of article

• Can this section be merged into the following stubby section to reduce headers? Call it "Post-World War II modernization" or something?

  Done, I called it "Dieselization and ownership changes". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Did you put that photo on the left breaking two section headers just to torture me? I've taken it upon myself to move it to the right. (Feel free to move it if you don't like where it landed)

  Can't say that I did it specifically to bother you, I added it before I really knew you or your editing preferences. It looks fine where it is now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Turned "as of 2012" into {{As of}}

  Fine by me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Moved the NPS template under the rest of the refs as I believe is common practice. MOS doesn't give specific direction but I think it's more typical. Not gonna fight if you dislike it.

  Seems fine to me. The article was previously a copy-paste job from the NPS article, but I've rewritten almost all the relevant text. There's maybe a sentence or two that are directly copied now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As always, I'm generally willing to negotiate if you explain why you disagree with changes. The header-breaking pic is a hill I will die on though, that stays on the right side >:c ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Responses left on anything that I feel merited one, anything I didn't respond to is fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• All solid now - happy to support this FAC! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Trotting Park. Is this term UsEng? Can it be explained or linked?

  It essentially means a horse racing track. I used the term "trotting park" simply because that's what the sources use. I've linked the first mention in both the lead and the body to Horse racing for lack of an article on horse racing tracks specifically. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• "built an extension from the BSRR's northern terminus to North Branford." Presumably this is the location of the quarries, but you should say so.

  I do say so, in the same paragraph: "Instead, the railroad served Branford quarries for trap rock—igneous rock used as track ballast, fill material for roadways, construction aggregate, and riprap." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• "the railroad served Braford quarries". Braford is a typo?

  Indeed it is. David Fuchs did some copyedits on July 27, and introduced a typo. I have corrected it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• "initially passed the state house and senate". You say above that the state's legislative branch was called the Connecticut General Assembly, one body not the bicameral house and senate.

  I don't follow. "The Connecticut General Assembly (CGA) is the state legislature of the U.S. state of Connecticut. It is a bicameral body composed of the 151-member House of Representatives and the 36-member Senate." I don't see how calling it the legislative branch is in conflict with it being a bicameral body. We often refer to bills "passing Congress" or "being stalled in Congress", because that's the name of the legislative branch of the United States Government. Same deal for Connecticut's legislative branch. The entire branch is called the Connecticut General Assembly, and it includes the State House of Representatives and the State Senate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• It is obviously my ignorance. I assumed that "Assembly" singular implies a single body. Maybe "bicameral Connecticut General Assembly" for clarity for foreigners?

• I suppose I could say so, but I already think there's too much detail being given to the specifics of the legislature. I have already added "the state's legislative branch" in response to previous comments and I think even more detail on the composition of the legislature is bordering on undue weight for this article. If you hover over the link, it comes right up that the legislature is bicameral. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Litigation over the issue continued for two years, until the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Fisk's favor and ordered the Shore Line to allow the Branford Steam Railroad to build its proposed railroad line on February 6, 1914." The ruling not the building was on that date. Maybe "Litigation over the issue continued for two years, until the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Fisk's favor on February 6, 1914 and ordered the Shore Line to allow the Branford Steam Railroad to build its proposed railroad line."

  Changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• "switching duties". Can this term be explained or linked?

  Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Ownership of both the Branford Steam Railroad and the quarry changed several times, without much effect on operations." I think that for compehensiveness you should give details and dates of the changes in ownership.

  I believe I have this all in order now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• "In the 2020s, the Branford Steam Railroad continues to serve the Tilcon Connecticut quarry in North Branford". This should be "As of date". You cannot predict the rest of the 2020s. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Changed to as of, though from what I've gathered the BSRR is expected to continue operating for at least the next 100 years based on how much rock is left in the quarry. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: is this article ready for promotion? We have 4 supports and the source review has been passed. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll read through this evening if none of the other coords beat me to it. Hog Farm _Talk 15:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: and @Trainsandotherthings: - I somehow cracked the touchscreen on my laptop and has rendered it unusable because the screen keeps selecting random things. I can't efficiently do most of the FAC tasks on my phone, so someone else will have to look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 02:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Not a prob, HF, I'll take care of it -- sorry to hear about the laptop, did the same to my phone not long ago, very frustrating. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

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