Template:Did you know nominations/Nagpur–Bhusawal section

Nagpur–Bhusawal section

 * ... that the closure of eight stations on the 189 km long Narrow gauge Shakuntala Railway in 2012 is a pointer to the fate of this more than a century old line?

Created by Chandan Guha (talk). Self nominated at 13:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC).


 * Looks good! Are you doing any review? --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Reviewed Raees Mohammad


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks good! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg The hook (and associated article text) has troubling similarities to sourced article; compare "is a pointer to the fate" to the article's "is a pointer to the train's fate". It's also not encyclopedic, and violates WP:CRYSTAL: we don't know that the line will be discontinued soon, and it isn't clear that it will be from the article. This article needs a new ALT hook, the close paraphrasing should be fixed, and a more thorough review written up afterward. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT1: *... that the closure of eight stations on the 189 km long Narrow gauge Shakuntala Railway in 2012 was a blow for this more than a century old line? - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ALT2: *... that the Nagpur-Bhusawal line passes through the Vidarbha region with high suicide rates amongst farmers? - Chandan Guha (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Chandan, interesting DYK! But I disagree with the original hook for reasons that BlueMoonset has mentioned and with ALT2 because the suicide rates are entirely tangential to the focus of the main article. I've expanded on the Shakuntala section by adding from the Businessline source. I want to suggest the following ALT:
 * ALT3: *... that the Shakuntala Railway is run by the Central Provinces Railways Company, India's only listed operational railway company? Ashwin147 (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is okay with me, thanks. - Chandan Guha (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The ALT3 hook isn't that interesting, but I also think "only listed operational railway company" is too obscure: this means it's the only railway company listed on the stock exchange, right? Most people won't have a clue that this is what's meant. (If that isn't what it means, then include me in "most people".) Isn't this the only remaining British-owned (private) company that owns an Indian railway line? That could be interesting. Also that (if I read the source material correctly the other day) they're required to keep it running even though it's a money-losing proposition? I've struck the original hook and ALT2 due to the reasons expressed above. Can you come up with a new ALT hook? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The company was British-owned but may not be so now. I am not sure. However, I have revised ALT3 as noted below. - Chandan Guha (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Revised ALT3: *... that the Shakuntala Railway is run by the Central Provinces Railways Company, India's only private operational railway company listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange?
 * ALT 4 added below - Chandan Guha (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ... that the future of the unviable narrow gauge Shakuntala Railway depends on how Central Railway acts on the option it has to buy it in 2016?


 * Symbol redirect vote4.png New review of recent ALTs needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg ALT3 is not about the article itself, but about the company which runs it. That's not good enough, so I'm striking it. ALT4 is potentially good, but the article itself unfortunately isn't. The Geography section should not be written like a bullet-pointed list, but as actual prose. Regardless, the issue with close paraphrasing has not been resolved; take a look at refs [3] and [15] for example.  —♦♦  AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  16:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the candid review. I have tried my level best to address the close paraphrasing issue, revising the text and reorganising it. Please have a look. If anything further is required to improve the article, I shall try again. - Chandan Guha (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote4.png That is much better, indeed! All the sources seem to be translated into original prose. To be sure, I'd like another reviewer to state this as well. —♦♦  AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  12:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg While it is clear that a lot of work has gone into this article and I feel that the close paraphrasing concerns have been address, I still have some content concerns. Like BlueMoonset earlier, I find parts of the prose confusing and hard to follow. A lot of the text feels like a juxtaposition of details and padding (like the mention of suicides by farmers in Vidarbha--which I removed) that have little or no connection to the topic of the article.
 * For example in the Geography section (which probably should be renamed since it talks more about the locations the line runs through than the actual geography of the terrain), there are comments that the line runs through "pockets of industrial growth" and then links to Reliance Power and Hindustan Unilever but no where does the text explain how that is relevant to the Nagpur–Bhusawal rail line? Did those businesses choose to build there because of the presence of the line? The reference citations for these items don't even mention the rail line at all.
 * Similarly, trying to follow the text in the History section, I'm finding it hard to decipher which part of the history relates to the actual Nagpur–Bhusawal section itself and which belongs to the history of Howrah–Nagpur–Mumbai line and which part to the general history of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway. In addition to some of the history details, the Golden quadrilateral section also appears to be cut and pasted from the Howrah–Nagpur–Mumbai line article adding even further confusion as to which text actually relates to the Nagpur–Bhusawal line itself.
 * Also, if ALT4 is going to highlight the line being a narrow gauge railway and "unviable", the article should probably include in the WP:LEAD the distinction of it being a narrow gauge and give a summary about why that is "unviable". For readers who are not familiar with gauges and railways, having some more details and explanation beyond just a wiki-link will help in understanding the WP:JARGON. AgneCheese/Wine 05:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking up the review. My reply to the points raised are as follows:
 * 1.Geography: I have split the section into two- Geography and Economy. I have removed most of the entries except three groups – cotton growing area, the power plants and central ammunition depot (CAD). I have not been able to get references for the industrial units related to this track and so I have removed some of them. I have retained the power plants. These are thermal power plants and need lots of coal. As such these are either located on the line or have a connection to it. Google and other maps will bear out this. Similarly, the CAD links are there on the maps, although not clearly marked. Maybe, the Economy section can be placed lower down.
 * 2.History: I have rewritten the history of the main line and attempted to make it more understandable.
 * 3.Golden quadrilateral: I have used the same text as I had used for other pages related to the Golden quadrilateral. I don’t think that there is any restriction on this. There would ultimately be around 20 pages (articles) that would carry the Golden quadrilateral  text. I can’t create so many different versions of it. I am using text that was mine.
 * 4. Gauge: I have tried to make it more understandable.
 * 5. Lead: I have revised the text.
 * Please have a look. I am willing to go in for further revisions.
 * - Chandan Guha (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am currently in the process of checking for close paraphrasing but a couple of notes to think about while I finish the review. I think the key with the economy section and mentioning the power plants and central ammunition depot, etc is that you need to point out in the article why they are relevant to a discussion of the Nagpur–Bhusawal section. Were they constructed there because of the presence of the line? Is a major part of their business plan the utilization of the rail line to bring in supplies? Are they able to attract employees because of they can use the line for transport, etc?
 * The history section is improved and I appreciate the added text to the gauge section. Thank you. It would still be more ideal to have the description of the line being a narrow gauge in the WP:LEAD (which is intended to provide a summary of the entire article).AgneCheese/Wine 16:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Follow up: The issue of cut & paste of the Golden quadrilateral between two articles written by the same editor is not too dire for DYK's purpose. Usually the repeated text is just disregarded from measuring the new article's content size but as this article is well above the 1500 character minimum we are fine here. However, a much more significant issue is the close paraphrasing of this section and the source under the Major connecting routes (currently FN#26). The last two lines of the Golden quadrilateral is almost word for word exact with the source. While I've cleaned up other occurrence of close paraphrasing (and am still reviewing a few more), I would like the editor to take a look at this section because the close paraphrasing will obviously need to be fixed in the other articles that this same text appears in. Personally I don't think this section is really needed in the article at all since it is more relevant to the Howrah-Nagpur-Mumbai line article. AgneCheese/Wine 17:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Action taken as follows:
 * 1.Added explanation for including coal based thermal power stations.
 * 2.Deleted CAD.
 * 3.Deleted Golden quadrilateral . (Revised text of same in Howrah-Nagpur-Mumbai line page.)
 * 4. Narrow gauge added in the lead.
 * A small section on Workshops has been added.
 * - Chandan Guha (talk) 04:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg I appreciate the edits and work that you have put in. The article is much improved from when I first reviewed it. I feel that all my concerns have been addressed and that the article passes DYK criteria. AgneCheese/Wine 04:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have been working on the railway line pages for sometime and had been groping around for improvements in content and format. I thank all the editors, not only for helping me in improving this article but also helping me in putting up better work in future. - Chandan Guha (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I hope to be reviewing more juicy DYKs from you soon! :)  —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  08:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)