Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cedar Hill Yard/archive1

Cedar Hill Yard

 * Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Cedar Hill Yard, a railroad yard located in my home state of Connecticut, in the cities of New Haven, North Haven, and Hamden. From 1920 into the 1960s, it was one one of the largest railroad yards on the planet with over 2,000 acres of facilities, and handled 3,000 or more railroad cars each day. It has declined in importance and size with the rise of trucking and the general departure of most industry from New England, but today it is still by far the largest railroad yard in the state of Connecticut. Cedar Hill Yard was my first successful GAN, and an article I have overseen from its creation to this point. I will also note this is my first FAC nomination, though I have participated in a few FAC reviews previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Image review: Hirtle stuff is awful, but images are all correctly licensed and verified to be public domain or own work. No NFCC images in the article so no need to worry about checking against the criteria. Sennecaster  ( Chat ) 02:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from GhostRiver
Watch this space —  Ghost River  16:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(still working)
 * Per MOS:CONFORM, if "humps" is the standard definition, then it shouldn't be in quotes; it can be as is or in italics
 * Quotes removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Link World War II in lede
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comma after "Albany, New York" per MOS:GEOCOMMA
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * in turn went bankrupt itself confusing/redundant
 * Reworded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Link first instance of New Haven in the body
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure why the acronym for the NYNH&H reailroad is given in parentheses next to the full name in the lede but not the body
 * I've changed it to state that the railroad was commonly known simply as "The New Haven" to avoid confusion with the city of New Haven. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * tensions with labor reached a breaking point this phrase kind of hits you out of nowhere because we didn't know before that there were any tensions
 * Reworded, and a 1 sentence paragraph merged as well in this section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When possible, try not to have one-sentence paragraphs
 * I believe I got all of them now, except for the one sentence introducing the table in the 1950 to 1969 section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you planning on continuing your review soon? I don't mean to pester you, but it has been more than a week. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. Grading papers, etc. has made my desire to critique other people's things very low. The rest of my review follows. —  Ghost River  04:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC) I believe I've responded to all your comments now; there's a few that need some clarification, when you get a chance. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * as soon as they understood the situation what situation?
 * I've reworded this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Freight congestion was so bad that it was delaying" -> "The severity of the freight congestion was enough to delay"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "for constructing" -> either "for the purposes of constructing" or "in order to construct"
 * Reworded as "in order to construct". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "$172,057,522" -> "172 million" per MOS:UNCERTAINTY
 * I've cut back the significant figures on all instances of price conversions for inflation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "no less than" -> "no fewer than"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "and was at a good location"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * {[tq|resulting in the hills needed to allow cars to be moved by gravity for classification}} awkward syntax
 * Reworded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "7 steam shovels" -> "seven steam shovels" per MOS:NUMERAL
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Add (ICC) in parentheses after Interstate Commerce Commission is mentioned, since it's referred to by its acronym later
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comma after "Springfield, Massachusetts" per MOS:GEOCOMMA
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "$30,143,411" -> "30 million" per MOS:UNCERTAINTY
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "35%" -> "35 percent" per MOS:PERCENT
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Springfield, Massachusetts should be linked in the second paragraph of the 1920 to 1950 subhead and delinked in the fifth
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not love the table where it currently is in the 1950 to 1969 section, feels like a MOS:USEPROSE violation
 * This is a tough one. Initially, the table was in its own section, but per comments at the peer review before I nominated this for FAC, I moved it into the section where it is now. Technically I could convey the same information in prose, but I'm not sure that would really be an improvement, there would be a lot of repeated text; this is why I initially made a table. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1958 would also be the last profitable year for operations at Cedar Hill Yard for many years, ironically thanks to significant business that year hauling concrete to be used to build highways in the region Not quite a run-on, but reads like one
 * I added a semicolon, and also shortened the sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comma after "March 28, 1960" per MOS:DATECOMMA
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:OVERLINK, do not link "New York" in "New York governor Malcolm Wilson", but Governor of New York can be piped to "New York governor"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comma after "Albany, New York" per MOS:GEOCOMMA
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delink Springfield MA in the Penn Central takes over subhead
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comma after "The company was merged into Conrail in 1976"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "$13,643,860" -> "$13.6 million" per MOS:UNCERTAINTY
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "just 4 months" -> "just four months" per MOS:NUMERAL
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "August of 1976" -> "August 1976" per MOS:BADDATE
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Swap the parenthetical and the non-parenthetical in "TOFC (Trailer On FlatCar)"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "37%" -> "37 percent" per MOS:PERCENT
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "2 years into" -> "two years into" per MOS:NUMERAL
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In 1978, Conrail was joined in the yard by Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator formed by the United States Congress in 1971. Construction of this sentence makes it seem as if Conrail was joined by Amtrak in 1971, even though 1978 is explicitly stated earlier
 * I changed the wording from "in 1971" to "earlier that decade" to attempt to resolve this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "October of 1981" -> "October 1981" per MOS:BADDATE
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "illegal dumping of the mercury" -> "illegally disposing the mercury"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk)
 * Comma after "April 17, 1991" per MOS:DATECOMMA
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "for the loading, unloading, and transfer"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delink "bulk cargo" in "Cedar Hill Yard today", linked above
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Combine paragraphs on Amtrak & Providence and Worcester Railroads
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename "Cedar Hill Yard today" section "Present day" in line with other transit articles
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "NYC" -> "New York City"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sentence at the very end of "Future" needs a citation
 * I've elected to remove it, as I don't specifically have a source saying "there is no car float service", it simply has not been reintroduced as of now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Future" -> "Future plans"
 * Assuming you meant renaming the subheader, this is done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't love the table where it currently is, but it's not a dealbreaker for me. We'll see if anyone else comments one way or the other. —  Ghost River  20:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7
Article looks pretty good. Can't remember seeing a FAC about a railway yard before. Some comments:

Lead

 * "Known simply as" Decapitalise the "k"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Link bankruptcy,
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "shifted to truck transport" Suggest road transport
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "burned in 1974" Suggest "was damaged by a fire in 1974"
 * Changed accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Location
Suggest using the as of template.
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

History
Hawkeye7  (discuss)  03:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Link Quinnipiac River
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "asserted the strike would quickly end" Did it?
 * I hadn't been able to find a source for this until now, but when I searched today I found a New York Times article saying the strike ended on November 23, 1901. Seems the president was right. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "500 acres (2.0 km2)" Convert to hectares, not square kilometres. Same with the following conversion.
 * Both corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "30 feet (9.1 m) in height" Suggest rounding to the nearest metre. Same for the next conversion.
 * Both corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "11 track transfer facility" -> "eleven-track transfer facility"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "traffic volumes continued to skyrocket after Cedar Hill Yard opened" Suggest "the new Cedar Hill Yard"
 * Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead talks about expansion due to World War I, but this is not in the body.
 * I've mentioned now in the body that the USRA takeover in December 1917 was directly due to U.S. involvement in WW1. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Cedar Hill Yard was at its busiest during World War II" The Second World War has already been referred to (unlinked). Suggest changing to World War II as well and linking ion first occurrence instead.
 * Changes done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "This strike was ended the next day by a bill" I am none the wiser as to what was done.
 * There were several instances of railroad strikes in the 1980s and 1990s that were almost instantly shut down by bills passed to ban both strikes and lockouts (see 1992 United States railroad strike), since rail transportation is vital to the U.S. economy and supply chain. I have clarified what the bill involved. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Present day" Suggest 21st Century instead.
 * Uncertain if this change is wise. The CSX section covers 1999 to present, so this would be redundant with that section. The aim of the present day section is to describe specifically the day-to-day operations in the yard as of now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski
I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.


 * Lede
 * This is something that is designed to be read and understood by any reader. The first sentence should be pretty explainatory, so when we say what something is, we should be accurate, but also make it more simple to quickly understand what the article is about. Is it worth replacing classification yard with railway yard, and then the next sentence explaining it is a classification yard? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea. You raise a good point here. I wish we had other GAs or FAs on railroad yards to compare to, but this is the only one on the entire website. Looking at some articles on yards, I see Bailey Yard starts off with classification yard, while Selkirk Yard uses railway yard, and Oak Point Yard uses railway yard as well (both preface it with "freight" which is piped to Rail freight transport. BNSF Barstow Yard uses "marshalling yard". Incidentally, there's many freight railroad yards that do not yet have articles. There's no clear convention from what I can find. My gut instinct is to leave the classification yard link as is (I need to improve the classification yard article, but that's a separate issue). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * becoming one of the busiest and most state-of-the-art - as it became one of the busiest in the United States. "State-of-the-art" isn't really a thing, maybe technologically complicated, but better to leave out unless specifically said by someone. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a few sources which refer to the yard as being state of the art when it was rebuilt from 1917-1920, but I see the merit in removing this from the lead to simplify the text. I have removed "state of the art" now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cedar Hill Yard routinely classified more than 3,000 railroad cars each day, and on particularly busy days handled more than 5,000 - can't we just say that it handled more than 5,000 on its busiest days? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable change to me. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The lede doesn't seem to mention anything about the future, despite having a section dedicated to it. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll think about this one a bit and get back to you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This has now been done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Prose
 * The article currently starts with: As built, the yard was situated where three railroad lines met, all of which remain in service as of 2021: the Shore Line Railway, which travelled east along the Connecticut coast past New Haven; the Hartford and New Haven Railroad, which travelled north to Hartford and Springfield; and the "Air Line" (Boston and New York Air-Line Railroad) which travelled northeast from New Haven towards Middletown. - do you not think the "location" is less important to understand the item than the history section, which starts better, explaining how it came about? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've moved the location section to the end of the article for the time being. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This sentence above is very long, can we split? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sentence split. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * there does seem to be a big disparity in the images. Can we move some of the later ones to earlier in the article? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I moved the CSX yard sign photo to the lead section, let me know if you think more should be moved. I am trying to keep the photos in more or less chronological order. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The above wouldn't be so bad, if the location section was last. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Location section is now last, see above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a couple duplicate links in the article. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I've caught all of them now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Whats a hopper car? 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You've caught me, as a subject matter expert sometimes I forget things that seem common knowledge to me aren't to many people. Wikilink added now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The table in the middle of the prose is a bit odd. I feel like it could even be it's own section: Facilities, where you could then merge any bits about how it runs today/when it was first built. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, it was originally its own section, but during a peer review just before I nominated for FAC, the reviewer suggested the table should instead be incorporated within the history section., do you mind commenting here, as you were the reviewer at PR who made this suggestion? The PR was at Peer review/Cedar Hill Yard/archive1. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about deleting the table entirely, as the map recently added can convey the information in a better manner. I would like to keep the definitions of the yard types somewhere though to help reader understanding. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My objection was that I thought a section almost entirely taken up by this table didn't work well. I think the current version is better than the standalone table-section; however, if it could be built out with more detail as part of a longer Facilities section that could also work. It would depend on what kind of sourcing you have available and what level of detail seems reasonable. You could potentially incorporate those definitions inline in a prose section. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd still like the table not to be in the middle of the prose; but I'm happy to support the rest. I do think a section on the facilities might be needed for a WP:BROAD summary. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Spot-checks not done. The widespread use of contemporary newspapers jumps out to me - granted, this is an antique topic but are we certain that they are reliable enough and that there is no more recent scholarship or literature? I see some formatting inconsistencies - most newspaper sources are referred to by name but some with websites by website name (e.g Courant) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done extensive searching for sources for this topic. The vast majority of what I could find was in newspapers, though you'll notice there are a number from Trains Magazine, which is a respected industry publication, along with older industry publications such as Railway Electrical Engineer and Freight Terminals and Trains. The only recent books I were able to find were North American Railyards (ref 17), which is from 2014, and The Rail Lines of Southern New England (ref 63), which is from 2017. Both generally corroborate the key points which are also cited to newspapers. The two newspapers most extensively cited here, The Day and the Record-Journal, are long standing publications which are active to this day, and I have no reason to doubt their reliability. Railroad yards are a niche topic (this is the only GA, let alone potential FA, within the topic area on Wikipedia) so there is relatively limited modern literature on them. However, the yard was (and is) very important to Connecticut, and to New England more broadly, which is why it had significant coverage in newspapers. For what it's worth, a search on Google Scholar pretty much only finds sources from the 1920s, when the yard was rebuilt. I've changed the ref to the Courant to cite newspaper instead of cite website, and I'll look for any others that are inconsistent. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have gone through every single reference individually to ensure they are all consistent. I did not find any more newspapers which used the cite website template. I've added access dates to all newspaper references that were missing them. I do not see any further issues, but it's possible I missed something. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing else jumps out to me as problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Spotchecks
version checked

I used a PRNG to choose 13 random citations (just over 20%). I have found some big problems. I suggest that the nomination be withdrawn and the nominator check each citation for close paraphrasing and citation integrity issues. Then, in a fresh FAC, a fresh batch of spotchecks can be done -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want me to do my own checks for cite integrity, I will do so, but I am not about to withdraw this after more than 5 weeks and 3 supports. I object to the claim that one of my cites is close paraphrasing. Responses in the order in which they were listed in the table:


 * 26: You say "Nothing in the sentence quoted looks like it came from this article." That is not true, this source supports the text which says "traffic was rerouted over alternate trestles." AP is attributed in the citation, as the author. If there is a different way that should be cited, I will change it, but issues have never been raised in the way I have cited AP articles until now. If I need to attribute AP differently, please let me know and I will make the correction to all sources which are from AP wire service.
 * 13: The date mismatch is an error in the source. I have multiple sources which support the opening year being 1920, including ref 17, which is one of the only modern sources I have and is a specialist publication. The 1920 opening date is also supported by cite 14 (from 1922, references Cedar Hill Yard as having been open for some time), cite 15 (from 1923, says the yards were recently opened), cite 12 (from 1921, refers to the yards as open), and cite 18 (from 1926, says the yard was opened "approximately six years ago"). I can add one or more of these to the sentence which states the yard opened in 1920; the purpose of ref 13 was more to support the claim that the yard "was the largest rail classification yard east of the Mississippi River." As for the paraphrasing claim, I do not agree that this is an issue. I am reporting a basic fact, and there is no way to truly reword this to make it not at all close paraphrasing. Listing a basic fact such as this does not count as a copyright issue, there's only so many ways a fact like this can be stated. I will note that this sentence was used to support a hook when this article was at DYK, and the reviewer and promoter both did not find any issues with this sentence.
 * 47: I will add a page number.
 * 61: This is one that I agree is an issue. I am going to cut it from the article entirely. The Selkirk Hurdle is an interesting concept and something I wanted to incorporate in the article, but I don't really have a great source for it. The burning of the Pokip Bridge and its effects are already covered earlier in the article, so I can cut this without sacrificing the article's comprehensiveness.
 * 25: There are no later sources available which expand upon the burning of the trestle and its replacement. What I can do here is change the wording from "over $100,000" to "up to $100,000". I will also attribute the statement to a spokesperson, in the way I attributed the Amtrak spokesperson quote used with cite 30.
 * 18: I will add a page number.
 * 56: The map I cited definitely included TRANSFLO terminals at the time I cited it, but this was also in September 2021. The map appears to have been redone since, and no longer indicates terminal facilities. I will replace this citation with which shows the terminal at Cedar Hill Yard.
 * 44: Did you look at reference 45, which directly quotes Giaimo, and also quotes a spokesperson from Conrail? I will add page numbers.
 * 37: I'm assuming you mean that I should change the quotation marks around toothpick machine to single marks, which I can easily do. I will add a page number; in fact I will do this for all newspaper references.
 * In conclusion, I agree some things need fixing, but I disagree that the issues are large enough that the nomination needs to be withdrawn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All newspapers from Google books now have page numbers, and all newspaper references from the Associated Press now have the AP listed under the Agency parameter. All other changes I indicated I would do above are now done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing as archive due to issues with text-source integrity and close paraphrasing. In order for a renomination to be successful, it would be best to double check all the references. Trainsandotherthings, I hope you are not too discouraged, I had to do this after one of my first FACs was closed for similar reasons. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am displeased my objections to the close paraphrasing claim were ignored. That my nomination has been failed because of one sentence which wasn't even close paraphrasing, in my opinion, does not make me happy. If someone gives me clear things I need to fix, I can fix them. But this was just failed after 5 weeks over a vague "fix the references". I am frustrated with this process, I spent a month and gained 3 supports, and made a ton of improvements to the article but all of that is ignored over a vague claim that "the article has copyright violations and did a crap job with text-source integrity." My responses to the source check were also ignored. And now if I want this to be FA, I will have to spend another month plus begging people to review and hoping that someone doesn't find one sentence they don't like, since that's all it takes to fail a nomination. And that will be after waiting weeks to even renominate because otherwise I'm sure it will just be quickfailed. Before I nominated this, I asked for a mentor and was told I didn't need one. Clearly that was a mistake. It is a known fact that almost all first nominations fail; with that being the case, and this nomination proving the point, I feel cheated in that I was told I didn't need a mentor. Having a mentor may well have lead to a different outcome here. The next time someone asks for a mentor, please think twice about their request. My feelings after this nomination experience are that the criteria for what makes an article a FA are not clearly defined, can be completely arbitrary, and that above all there are not enough resources to help first time nominators. I thought that having half a dozen GAs would have prepared me for FAC, but the level of difficulty here is exponentially greater. To be blunt, why should I waste so much of my editing time at one FAC when I could easily get 4 or 5 GAs done in the same timeframe? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I don't think it's accurate to say that the article was archived over one sentence. Unfortunately, when so many of the cites fail verification in one way or another, I do not think there is any other option but to archive the nomination. You ask, why should I waste so much of my editing time at one FAC when I could easily get 4 or 5 GAs done in the same timeframe This is a valid perspective, and one of the reasons that I focused on GAs when I was starting out. However, text–source integrity is something that should be as important to GA as it is to FA; articles with issues should not get passed at either level until the issues have been resolved. I found that going through the cites for the Holocaust in Slovakia article and making sure I can justify each one with a quote, resulted in significant benefit for that article but also my overall editing style. The verifiability of my contributions improved greatly, which is a benefit regardless of whether they end up at FAC.
 * Yes, it's true that many first FACs fail—mine did—but I learned from the experience and eventually learned to write articles to the standard expected at FAC. I don't think having a mentor would have changed the outcome on this FAC, assuming you could have found one. Most mentors would not have extensively checked the references, which is where the issues were ultimately found. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)