Talk:Cornwall Electric/Archive 1

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work!.

North8000 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt comments (part 1)
I was asked on my talk to look at this article. Some comments:
 * Some short, choppy sentences in the lede.
 * - Rewritten.


 * Is it "City of Cornwall" or "city of Cornwall"?
 * - Changed them all to the latter, and kept the one "City" when referring to the Corporation and the MoU.


 * I would shorten the long corporate names after the first use and there is no need for italicisation.
 * - Done.


 * From where did Stormont get its power? Hydroelectric? Was the source within city limits? Did this change over time? At what point I the energy generation become separate?
 * - Various sources, now included in the article.


 * You say "pro-hydro" and "anti-hydro". If the objection is to the company rather than the source of power, I would capitalise the H.
 * - Changed to pro-Hydro and anti-Hydro.


 * In the fifth paragraph of "History" it might be best to refer to "the company" or use its name every couple of sentences.
 * - History section rewritten.


 * "In 1987, Cornwall Street Railway Light and Power Company Limited, " Is this Cornwall Electric? If so say so. If you want to tell the reader it has a new name then say it was renamed, or was known by then as, or whatever is needed.
 * - Done.


 * In the description of the 1997 sale, it might be better to put the name of the purchaser in the first sentence rather than somewhat later on.
 * - New Ownership section.


 * "This allowed Cornwall residents, to have enough power to meet seventy-five percent of its electricity needs during the ice storm.[10]" The comma seems unneeded and it should be "their" electricity needs.
 * - Done.


 * "Fortis Inc. has roots in St. John's Newfoundland and Labrador," I don't know why you're avoiding the comma or using the full provincial name.
 * - Added the comma, removed "Labrador".


 * " Hydro-Québec.Hydro-Québec." ??
 * - Fixed.


 * There is no need to italicise quotations.
 * - All removed.


 * Why is the Glen Walter issue worth mentioning at some length? What is the source of the dispute? Money?
 * - This originally was all under a "Controversy" heading. I'll circle back on that one.
 * - Update: Removed the last sentence surrounding the local controversy.


 * In general, I found the history hard to follow. It may need to be written in a more narrative fashion. It seemed very episodic. Ping me when you want me to take another look and I'll be more prompt.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * - History section rewritten.


 * Very constructive feedback. Will ping you when ready. Thank you!  W ILD S TAR  talk 19:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , I adjusted the lead to better summarize the article. To address your "history" concern above, I added "Inception", a rewritten "History" section, new separation of the "Railway operations" and "Electricity operations", which I segmented further into a new "Early years", "Expansion", "Control", and expanded the "Power source", "Ownership", and the "Community involvemnent" sections.   —  W ILD S TAR  talk  16:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy comments
asked me to take a look at this page on my talk page to determine its suitability for a GA review. To get the bad news out early, I do not think it is ready for a GA review. Here are some of the issues that need fixing.

Inception

 * No citations in the entire inception section

History

 * This feels like it should be combined with the Inception section
 * Citations are pretty sparse
 * Lot of editorializing wording, such as "and would witness an event that would have historic significance in the development of the electrical industry in Canada." While the sentiment is clear, it's not encylopedic to use such subjective language; how are we determining "historic significance?"

Railway operations

 * Looks like it has good citations
 * The Cornwall Street Railway Company section is excessively detailed, especially considering that it never carried out its services
 * Editorialized language, such as "use of the service grew quickly"

Electricity operations

 * Citations, citations, citations
 * This narrative is too detailed and difficult to follow
 * A lot of excessive wording. Things such as "In October 1887, W.R. Hitchcock found himself in the precarious position of growing his business and having to borrow $5,000 dollars from the directors of Stormont Electric to pay his bills. He was unable to repay the loan within the ten months allotted to him, and under the terms of the loan agreement, he would forfeit all "his rights, privileges, property and effects in the electric light plant" to Stormont Electric." This could be more succinctly worded with something like "In October 1887, Hitchcock borrowed $5,000 from Stormont Electric, but lost his company ten months later when he defaulted on his loan"

Ownership

 * Citations look good. There are a few uncited areas.
 * Excessive wording is again an issue here

Regulations

 * This seems very out of place. I don't think this section tells much about the company

Community involvement

 * This section seems largely unnecessary. For a large company, "small" donations of $2,000 and $5,000, and the excessively detailed Bear-A-Thon aren't necessary to include in this page. While I commend this company on a personal level for its community outreach, it's not like the company as a whole is philanthropically focused.

In summary, improve citations, make the writing more encylopedic, and take a good look at what is necessary to tell the story of Cornwall Electric, and what are just details about the company. Good luck; let me know if you have any questions! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , I did attempt to adhere to the six good article criteria, and as you correctly noted, I do struggle with writing using an encyclopedic style, a habit of trying to pull in the reader to tell him or her a story, which causes me to quickly veer off into editorialization. I must admit that I am somewhat blind to it, but once someone points it out, I clearly see it. I think in time, it will correct itself. This may also apply to the narrative.  Perhaps I need to be less immersed in the research material and be more organized and focussed with my thoughts. Now, about “citations, citations, citations”... I tend to only use them when I believe something written may be contested.  I suppose when writing about a 133-year-old company, everything said could be contested.  As suggested, I've added quite a few more, but mostly because having more citations than not having enough, would be a much easier fix come review time.  Finally, I do want to thank you immensely for being willing to participate in my journey towards a possible GAR, for responding quickly to my request for an opinion on whether or not I should proceed, and going beyond expectations!  —  W ILD S TAR  talk  23:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It definitely takes time to adjust to the encyclopedic style of writing. Regarding the citations, yes, there is a thing such as WP:OVERCITE, but that is more like an overuse of multiple citations on a single fact/sentence. At the least, all paragraphs should end with a citation pointing the reader to where the information can be found, but don't be afraid of using it throughout the paragraph as well.  Even if its something mundane that won't be contested, WP:OR insists that editors do not use original research, and must clearly state where the information is from. Hope that helps! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wehwalt comments (part 2)

 * I'm doing some hands-on edits, feel free to revert or modify any you don't like.
 * "where Thomas Edison would go to successfully deploy a system of lights," What in the article supports this? If you keep it, it could be better phrased.
 * Changed to: "where Thomas Edison would demonstrate his invention of electric incandescent lights," which is supported here. —  W ILD S TAR  talk  19:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * John MacMillan was placed in charge of the generators at the Canada Mill by Billsby, and would be two years later, installing generators at various locations for the Edison Company, which would become part of the General Electric Company. Something wrong with this sentence.
 * Repharased as follows: John MacMillan was placed in charge of the generators at the textile mill by H.M. Billsby, and after two years there, would go on to install generators at various locations for the Edison Company, which would become part of the General Electric Company. —  W ILD S TAR  talk  19:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll hold off for a bit while BG works with you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Balon is not working with me. He had recently completed the process of a GAR, and moved on to a FAN, and as he stated below, I simply asked him for his thoughts on whether or not this article was ready for a GAN.  —  W ILD S TAR  talk  22:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What I really meant to say was that I anticipate you'll be making at least some edits in response to his comments, I'd prefer to wait for those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Already done. I added more citations, removed some editorialization, excessive wording and details, rearranged and trimmed the "Community involvement" section (perhaps not enough), moved and renamed "Regulations" to "Licensing" and placed it near the end of the article.  Thank you very much for your help. Take care!   —  W ILD S TAR  talk  15:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the main point I'd make (I agree with BG's talk for the need for citations and for the prose in general to be made more engaging) is that the article seems to move back and forth chronologically a few times. I guess I'd ask if the Inception, History (which is itself an odd title for a section that covers 11 years), Electricity Operations and Ownership could be folded into a single chronology, divided into as many chronological sections as may be necessary. The railroad operations could be the section that then follows, and then Community Involvement as now. Since they are all telling the same basic story, it might be good to tell it once.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the back and forth was me trying to keep all the change of hands under one section. Doing away with that idea has restored the timeline in an orderly fashion.  The heading  "Inception" is gone.  That was just the wrong name.  "Name" is a better choice for this section, which is where I want to clearly explain to the reader (alleviating an earlier concern) the origins of the name, and adding why the long corporate name remained.  Citations have already been augmented, including one for every paragraph. —  W ILD S TAR  talk  02:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)