Talk:Providence and Worcester Railroad

Map
It would be nifty if a map were provided which distinguishes between owned and leased lines. -- Beland 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Type of service
Was the P&W always a freight-only railroad? -- Beland 01:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

FA
This is an excellent and entertaining article, and kudos to the editors who've worked on it.   Ravenswing     01:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Accidents
The article mentions one accident, but there must be others. Most rail company articles have an "accidents and incidents" section. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * In my research for bringing the article to GA and subsequently FA, I have been unable to find any records of serious accidents besides the 1853 collision, and several sources (including Karr's The Rail Lines of Southern New England) explicitly state it was the only major accident in the company's history. There have been minor derailments, of course, but overall the company has had an excellent safety record. One story was published last year about G&W's safety record in Connecticut, and notes several P&W derailments in 2022, but none were notable enough to merit inclusion in the article, in my judgement. The article also notes that overall, G&W's accident rate per hour worked is less than half the average of U.S. railroads. I am aware many articles have an accidents section, but this is not a Class I railroad with thousands of miles of tracks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Edit requests
Nick.deligtisch (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Specific text to be added or removed: Originally a single track, its busy mainline was double-tracked after a fatal 1853 collision in Valley Falls, Rhode Island... Key commodities carried by P&W include lumber, paper, chemicals, steel, construction materials and debris, crushed stone, automobiles, and plastics
 * Reason for the change: All this data does not have a relevant source to support it and is a lot of information that lacks credibility. Unless there is a more recent source supporting this information, we request this to be removed due to it being uncited.
 * References supporting change: Not applicable, I want this to be removed, not replaced.


 * Definitely not. You are proposing to remove 3/4 of the lead section based on lack of citations. Given most of the these are historical claims, they do not need recent sources (facts from 1853 probably haven't changed much in the past few decades). Lead sections do not need cites because they merely highlight or summarize parts of the article body: citing a reliable source in the body is sufficient. You should spend time reviewing our WP:V policy (and its WP:RS guideline) and lead section standard before filing any more requests similar to this one.
 * Note that this article was recently promoted to "featured article" status, which means it had many layers of scrutinty for content and sourcing quality.
 * As a specific example, the idea in the lead that double-tracking followed (in time, and also at least partially motivated by) the 1853 accident parallels content in the section. The content in the article is cited to the Heppner book, and this book supports both the timeline and the accident as one motivating factor to get it done. DMacks (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * All this data does not have a relevant source to support it and is a lot of information that lacks credibility. Unless there is a more recent source supporting this information, we request this to be removed due to it being uncited. In a word, bullshit. It's all well cited and documented in Karr 2017, Heppner 2012, and Lewis 1973, among other sources. I spent a month on getting this article to featured article status and did extensive research and checking with sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)