Template:Did you know nominations/Electrification of Caltrain


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Electrification of Caltrain

 * ... that construction on the project to electrify Caltrain in the San Francisco Bay Area was expected to begin on March 1, 2017, until an expected grant was deferred by U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao? Source: "The commuter rail line announced Monday that it has reached agreements with two contractors to extend a March 1 deadline to begin work...the Federal Transit Administration said it was deferring $647 million in grant funding...It now needs the signature of new Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao." San Jose Mercury News
 * ALT1: ...that federal funding for the project to electrify Bay Area commuter railroad Caltrain was pulled days before construction was scheduled to begin? Source: same as first hook
 * Reviewed: Paul Cooper (footballer, born 1953)

Created by Haha169 (talk). Self-nominated at 08:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg This article is new enough, clearly long enough (over 26,000 characters of prose), and within Wikipedia policy (it is neutral, very well cited, and free of copyright-related concerns, when the properly cited extended quotations are considered). Both the hook and the alternate are properly referenced with inline citations, but due to their respective lengths, as well as the more negative tone of the hook and more interesting overall effect of the alternate, I have a strong preference for the alternate and would recommend going with it. QPQ has been done, while the image used is freely licensed (CC-BY-SA-4.0), shows up well as a thumbnail, and is used in the article. All in all, this article looks good to go to me. Excellent work, Haha169! Michael Barera (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review! I prefer the alternate as well. --haha169 (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)