Template:Did you know nominations/Staten Island Railway


 * 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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Staten Island Railway

 * ... that regular passenger service on the Staten Island Railway started in 1860 between Vanderbilt's Landing and Eltingville?


 * Reviewed: Butterfly

Improved to Good Article status by Kew Gardens 613 (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 18:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Long enough, new enough, within policy, QPQ done. This certainly isn't close to the most interesting hook that could come out of this article; perhaps someone could suggest a few more and I'll pass it? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ... that Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip rode the Staten Island Railway across Arthur Kill Vertical Lift Bridge for a meeting with Dwight D. Eisenhower?
 * — Maile (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Large portions of the article are copied verbatim or very closely paraphrased from this source: http://jcrhs.org/B&O.html. Guess I should have checked that first instead of last.  The article should be checked for more instances of copyvios as well. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Upon further investigation, the entire History section was a copyvio from multiple sources and had to be rolled back to its pre-expansion state. Given this, I've put the article up for GAR.  If delisted the article will not pass DYK, but it could be nominated again if it reaches GA status again in the future. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Hypothetical point if it comes back for a second GA nom. I guess we'd sort it out then. I have just added this bit as this is going to get deleted soon when the day list empties. Victuallers (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg GA reassessment is underway and the author has been very cooperative in fixing the problems. There's a good chance it will remain listed.  I'd rather keep this nomination on hold until the reassessment concludes. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless this is imminent (next week?) then I suggest you relist it when it returns as it will then be effectively its first (correct) GA approval and will be valid then. As it is this will shortly be the oldest DYK nom and the GA that finally arrives will be rewritten. Victuallers (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's taking longer than I thought. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Victuallers (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Before we reject, I should point out that the article is currently listed as a GA. That hasn't changed. If the reassessment doesn't delist the article, then it has been consistently a GA throughout this period, and can't again be nominated for DYK under a GA listing dating back to October. I had thought that articles only had once chance at DYK from GA, but the rules don't say that, just that it can be nominated if it was made a GA within the past seven days, so if it is delisted, then it could be eligible again if it passes a later GAN. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to expedite the GA reassessment. I'm not quite seeing the improvement I'm looking for, so I'll give it another couple of days at most. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The GA review is proceeding quickly now, so I beg your indulgence for a little more time, even though this puts me in the ignominious position of having the oldest current DYK review. D-:  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg The article has passed GAR; all copyvio issues have been dealt with.  I'm going to step aside for a new reviewer since I ran the GAR myself.  I suggest the following hooks.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that the Staten Island Railway was Cornelius Vanderbilt's first involvement in a railroad?
 * ALT2: ... that Erastus Wiman, the "Duke of Staten Island," named the community of St. George after George Law in order to flatter him to secure land needed for the Staten Island Railway?
 * ALT3: ... that who gets on in Staten Island stays in Staten Island while riding for the Staten Island Railway?  NE Ent 00:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Sorry, still can't pass this. The copyvio detector still shows large chunks of copied text from http://www.railfanguides.us/ny/sirt/.  Just in case this still gets rescused, I have struck some of the hooks.  The date in the original hook disagrees with what is written in the article, ALT1 (first one) is not in the article at all, and ALT3 makes no sense to me, unless it is saying that the Staten Island Railway is in Staten Island, in which case it is not much of a hook fact. SpinningSpark 16:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

This may still be a GA (in some non-logic universe), but its also still rejected. It has not only failed but it has been worked on for several weeks and it still fails. Victuallers (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I just took a look at that railfanguides.us/ny/sirt page while preparing to close this nomination, and it says that it copied from Wikipedia: "The following comes from Wikipedia, so not all of it may be entirely true or accurate:"; this is done in (at least) two sections of that page. I have a great deal of trouble with rejecting this nomination because of supposed copying from a site that copies Wikipedia; Spinningspark, are there any actual instances of copyvio or close paraphrasing from this site, or are they all this site copying Wikipedia? On the other hand, I'm troubled by using such a site as a reliable source, and also by the six link-only references (not even as good as the [also DYK ineligible] bare URLs, because the URL doesn't display); the article should not be given GA status with those fundamental issues (and perhaps more) still unresolved. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if the site is copied from Wikipedia, what's it doing as a source in the article? That's circular referencing.  Even if there is no copyvio, that is just too much of a mess after all the reviewing this one has had to let it pass. SpinningSpark 18:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The cite was used for a single obscure fact in a section that wasn't copied—the citation is now gone—and that's why copyvio detector took a look lit up like a Christmas tree. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

What would you suggest that I fix in order to keep it at GA status? I am willing to make any needed fixes. I took that reference out. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll strike my rejection and let someone else close it . The GA status will not be decided here.  As far as I know, it is not currently challenged.  If someone wants to do that they will have to take it to GAR again and state their case there. SpinningSpark 18:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Having done further checking, there are other sources that Copyvio detector considers possible violations, and one, jcrhs.org/B&O.html, is clearly such. The source page in question was written in 2001 and 2004 and last updated in late 2011, but at least some of the duplications weren't in the Wikipedia article even by that latest date, so I'm concurring with the other opinions and closing this nomination now. A prominent example includes Wikipedia's "In 1900, the B&O was put under the control of the Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR), which made a number of improvements to the line. Within a few years the B&O was profitable again and emerged from PRR control as a stronger railroad.", which is almost entirely copied (and referenced) from the source's separated "By 1900, the B&O was put under the control of the Pennsylvania Railroad, which made a number of improvements to the road." and "Within a few years the B&O was profitable again and emerged from PRR control as a stronger railroad." sentences, which have additional detail between them. There are a significant number of identical phrases and close paraphrasing that should be fixed; as noted above, the GAR has been closed so the GA status is not affected by this, but another GAR could conceivably be opened if the remaining close paraphrasing is not addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)