Talk:Cornwall Electric/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ruthgrace (talk · contribs) 17:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. It will probably take me a couple days for the first pass. Ruthgrace (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, so far this article is beautifully written!! Very nice work. I expect all my comments will be minor things.
 * 2nd paragraph in Cornwall_Electric has some things in future tense that I think should be in past tense, since they refer to past events, e.g. "The two companies would merge in 1905" should be "The two companies merged in 1905"
 * ✅ - Reworded the paragraph.
 * update: Same tensing issue with Cornwall_Electric, Cornwall_Electric, Cornwall_Electric, second paragraph in Cornwall_Electric, and first paragraph here Cornwall_Electric. Basically if you ctrl+F "would" you will find a lot of cases where historical events are talked about in future tense. Ruthgrace (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed "was incorporating federally" to "was incorporated federally" in the 3rd paragraph of Cornwall_Electric
 * ✅ - Changed this back slightly, as both companies were incorporating at the same time; one was further into the process but neither had yet completed incorporation.
 * I'm looking at the citations in the first paragraph of Cornwall_Electric, and I think there is some information that is not cited. I've added citation needed tags.
 * I figured out which of the sources was meant to be the citation for the first sentence and filled that one in. Ruthgrace (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the extra "and" in the first paragraph of Cornwall_Electric: "Company solicitors also prepared a deed of purchase for the use of the water-power plant in a building on land used for a gristmill, and controlled by David Hodge."
 * (review to be continued) Ruthgrace (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Back at it!
 * I think it would be good to either remove "who was key to Cornwall's economic growth" here "It was passed on to him by his father Andrew Hodge, who was key to Cornwall's economic growth", or replace it with what Andrew Hodge's specific contribution to Cornwall's economic growth was, to remove editorial bias. (first paragraph of Cornwall_Electric)
 * - The citation says he was a "driving force in Cornwall's economic growth." The water rights he acquired with the purchase of the gristmill allowed Cornwall Electric to grow, and expanding the operation to add a woollen mill and a saw mill employed many more, which also benefited Cornwall Electric. He also served as mayor of Cornwall which on its own affects the utility and town.  It's all context that may be important to the narrative.
 * ✅ - I removed the "who was key to Cornwall's economic growth".
 * I've gone ahead and removed the extra comma after "Ontario" in the first paragraph of Cornwall_Electric: "After being in abeyance for several years, the High Court of Justice for Ontario, issued a final order of foreclosure on 13 April 1890."
 * I've changed the tense of "provided" to match "allowing" in this sentence in the first paragraph of Cornwall_Electric: "An act passed in the provincial legislature of Ontario, provided Stormont Electric with the necessary permission to operate Cornwall Gas Works, allowing it to manufacture and sell gas for light..."
 * ✅ - Changed to: "An act Act passed in the provincial legislature of Ontario, providing provided Stormont Electric with the necessary permission to operate Cornwall Gas Works, allowing it to manufacture and sell gas for light, power, and heat in the town and township of Cornwall, and to increase the value of its capital stock by $50,000."
 * Hi, I think there's still a grammar problem here. I think it needs a 'that' added before 'passed', or else its unclear what the subject is (see https://web.ku.edu/~edit/that.html). And there's an extra comma after 'Ontario'. Ruthgrace (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * oh... I see what you mean!  —  W ILD S TAR  TALK  18:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the Cornwall Street Railway Company didn't actually make a railway, I would suggest that this content be reduced to a sentence, and moved as the first paragraph in the next section Cornwall_Electric, before "Ten years later". This is in the spirit of Summary_style.
 * - Reduced to one sentence, but not moved to the next section — a different company.
 * Last sentence of Cornwall_Electric, "No evidence could be found, indicating that the company had ever started offering its railway service." should say "No evidence could be found to indicate...", if kept.
 * I think the first sentence in Cornwall_Electric is a little confusing. Maybe split it up into two sentences? "Ten years would pass, before the town council granted on 28 December 1895, another franchise to the Cornwall Electric Street Railway Company, which incorporated in 1896 to offer the same service, using electrical power instead of horse power."
 * The date came from here. I can't use the full date.  The citation used in that article makes no mention of December 28th.  Will either find a new source or modify with just the year and use the original source.
 * ✅ - Removed the paragraph. It was chronologically out of order, and the following paragraph covers that it's a new franchise and that electric service is now provided.
 * (review to be continued) Ruthgrace (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Continuing on... I've finished reading the article and am looking at the citations now
 * I don't understand the relationship between Franchise agreements and the low cost of power in Cornwall, from the last sentence of the lead: "The company has also been granted legislative exemptions by the provincial regulator, while it holds long-term Franchise agreements with the municipalities and townships it serves, enabling it to provide electricity consumers with some of the lowest rates in Ontario." Looking at the Franchise agreement article, it says "It overall provides the investor with a product, a branded name and recognition, and a support system." In the case of Cornwall Electric, who is the franchiser and who is the franchisee? The citation just says that Cornwall Electric has cheaper power because it's contracted with Hydro Quebec, instead of the Ontario grid.
 * - Reworded the paragraph.
 * The info from the first half of the first sentence in Cornwall_Electric isn't covered by the citation. I added a citation needed tag.
 * ✅ - Replaced citation (which covers date in service, no. of cars, length of track) and moved it back to the end of the paragraph.
 * Third paragraph in Cornwall_Electric: "Cornwall Electric started its passenger streetcar service on 1 July 1896 using an electric locomotive pulling four cars traveling on what was approximately 4.8 km of track, and would purchase an additional two cars in 1897." The only info in the citation is the first date, so I've moved the citation there and marked the rest of the sentence as citation needed.
 * More missing citations in the 4th paragraph of Cornwall_Electric, which I've marked in the article.
 * ✅ - Previous citation covers this, which can also be moved to the end of the paragraph.
 * last paragraph of Cornwall_Electric: "The Canadian National (CN) purchased the freight operations on 1 April 1971 for $430,000." The citation mentions the year but not the date or the dollar amount. I marked this as citation needed.
 * (review to be continued) Ruthgrace (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Continuing on...
 * I couldn't find the information in the last sentence of the first paragraph here Cornwall_Electric in the linked citation.
 * - Used a more direct source (same one she was using).
 * In the last sentence here Cornwall_Electric there's a quote, but if you read the article cited, the bit that's quoted was actually paraphrased by the author of the article, and not literally said by Ernie Jackson. I think this should be paraphrased instead of quoted.
 * ✅ - Good catch!
 * I think the second paragraph in Cornwall_Electric about the donations should be deleted, unless you can find a secondary source for them. The current source is the Cornwall Electric company website.
 * (review to be continued) Ruthgrace (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Continuing on...
 * I couldn't find the information in the last sentence of the first paragraph here Cornwall_Electric in the linked citation.
 * - Used a more direct source (same one she was using).
 * In the last sentence here Cornwall_Electric there's a quote, but if you read the article cited, the bit that's quoted was actually paraphrased by the author of the article, and not literally said by Ernie Jackson. I think this should be paraphrased instead of quoted.
 * ✅ - Good catch!
 * I think the second paragraph in Cornwall_Electric about the donations should be deleted, unless you can find a secondary source for them. The current source is the Cornwall Electric company website.
 * I think the second paragraph in Cornwall_Electric about the donations should be deleted, unless you can find a secondary source for them. The current source is the Cornwall Electric company website.

That's it for my first pass! This is actually my first ever review; if I get any feedback from more experienced Wikipedians about Good Article reviews, I will add more here. Happy to look over it again once this is all addressed, or answer any questions. Good luck! Ruthgrace (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think I covered everything in your first pass. Please let me know if there is anything I may have missed.  Thank you!  —  W ILD S TAR  TALK  02:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm trying to find someone with more Wikipedia experience than me to answer two questions:
 * Is it OK that most of the content of this article comes from one source, Cornwall_Electric?
 * Is it OK that two of the citations are a report from Cornwall Electric's parent company, Fortis? This is a primary source. My feeling is that citing this for the numbers about how much electricity Cornwall Electric provides is OK, since any secondary source would cite the same thing. I'm not sure about other information that uses these citations: Cornwall_Electric and Cornwall_Electric
 * Let me know if you find any Wikipedia guidelines about these things. Ruthgrace (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , reliance on one secondary source, over others (there are 38 of them), matters not. Citations are only there for verifiability of the material that is included in the article.  Also, circling back to the 6 GA criteria may provide you with a renewed sense of perspective and perhaps the answer you seek.   I do hope that helps.   —  W ILD S TAR  TALK  18:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Let me take some time to do some more reading and think about if there's anything else I missed. I'll get back to you Thursday latest! Ruthgrace (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * After sleeping on it, I can't think of anything else to add for the Good Article review, and I'm happy to pass this article!! It indeed well written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated. I particularly liked the detail about the Cornwall Electric employee who saved the day with his bow and arrow during the ice storm. Congratulations :) Ruthgrace (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added Cornwall Electric to Good_articles/Engineering_and_technology and added the Good Article tags on the talk page. A bot should come along and give you the Good Article icon, but if it's not working, feel free to ping me to do it manually for you. All the best! Ruthgrace (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , when you posted that you were going to review the article, there was both joy and trepidation. This GAR was also my first, and I truly did not know what to expect.  Thankful and wanting to seize the moment, off I went to the library to pick up my research material.  The execution of your review made it easy to get back into the groove.  Your advice, which was well taken, certainly added to the improvement of the article and perhaps to the encyclopedia itself. I do hope that you will do it again many more times with others seeking a Good Article Review.  It was a pleasure collaborating with you and it is my hope that we can do it again one day!
 * I would also like to express gratitude to for their  contribution,  for his unvarnished truth, as well as all the improvements quietly made by other editors.  Thank you!  —  W ILD S TAR  TALK  18:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Ruthgrace Great work on this GA review! One valuable thing that you did is checking some of the sources to see if they support the article content. Checking the sources, which some reviewers unfortunately skip, is essential to detecting issues with verifiability and original research. You did not explicitly mention copyright in the review, but https://copyvios.toolforge.org/ is a great tool to detect copyright violations and close paraphrasing. If you have any questions about image copyright issues, you can ask me or post on the GAN talk page. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's tremendously helpful! Thanks, buidhe! Just ran Cornwall Electric through and got Violation Unlikely. :) Ruthgrace (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)