Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Providence and Worcester Railroad/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Providence and Worcester Railroad[edit]

Providence and Worcester Railroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Providence and Worcester Railroad was formed in 1844 to connect its namesake cities. This was accomplished in 1847, and it continued running trains until it was leased by the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad in 1889, which was itself leased by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad (The New Haven) in 1892. For most companies, that would be the end of the story, and the holder of the lease would inevitably buy out the company being leased. But the P&W was different. Thanks to some peculiar rules in its original 1844 charter protecting the interests of smaller shareholders, the New Haven couldn't get hold of enough shares to merge the company. It continued to exist for 85 years under lease, and the New Haven tolerated having to pay the P&W shareholders dividends, until the New Haven (which went bankrupt in 1961 and never recovered) was merged into Penn Central in 1969.

Penn Central did not want the P&W, but the Interstate Commerce Commission felt otherwise and ordered its inclusion in the merger, in spite of PC threatening to abandon the P&W's tracks. Penn Central would suffer the share rules no longer and demanded they be rewritten so it could take control and absorb the P&W. Instead, P&W's shareholders voted to terminate the lease entirely and take over their own railroad again. To PC's shock, the ICC agreed, and P&W was made independent on February 3, 1973. Starting with roughly 55 miles of tracks, P&W rapidly grew into a major railroad by buying lines from other, larger companies that couldn't operate them profitably, and doing just that (making a profit). It also purchased several shortline railroads outright. Today, P&W owns or has operating rights on 612 miles of tracks in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York. It was purchased by shortline holding company Genesee & Wyoming in 2016, but continues as before with few changes (apart from G&W orange slowly replacing P&W's brown and red on its locomotives). P&W has shown it's possible to run freight rail profitably in New England, despite the departure of much of the region's former industry which doomed so many other railroads. P&W is set to continue to succeed where many others have failed for the foreseeable future.

I made P&W a good article in late 2021, and a year later, after extensive work (and moving to Rhode Island myself) I think it's ready for FAC. P&W is now my hometown railroad, so I feel a special affinity for it and would love to see it become a featured article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the 1847 map
    I've tried my hand at this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Good, but this should be done using |upright= rather than fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't follow. Where is the documentation for this? (Or you could just make the change yourself since I'm not understanding what you mean). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    See MOS:UPRIGHT. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure why it matters, but done regardless. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Providence_and_Worcester_Railroad_logo.svg: FUR needs completing
    Filled out with the standard rationales for logos. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Source link is dead, and who is believed to be the copyright holder? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Source link was messed up by a visual editor bug. Fixed now. Copyright holder information added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Providence_and_Worcester_RR_1909.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
    Stock/bank notes like that don't really give any information on a specific person who created them. We generally assume they are public domain given sufficient age (over 100 years for this one). I checked the uploader on Commons [1], and he is a German speaker and I'm unsure he speaks English. User:Pi.1415926535, do you mind weighing in here? I know you're familiar with copyright on things like this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've corrected the copyright tag to PD-US-expired. Issuance of a stock certificate should constitute publication. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:L._Wright_-_Train_wreck_on_the_Providence_Worcester_Railroad_near_Pawtucket,_Rhode_Island_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    This was published in a Rhode Island newspaper contemporaneously (1853, see source here), the copyright expired a long time ago (before any of us were even born). My recently acquired copy of Railroads of Rhode Island: Shaping the Ocean State's Railways, by Frank Heppner, confirms this and also states this photo was the first ever photo of a train collision published in a newspaper. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Railway_and_locomotive_engineering_-_a_practical_journal_of_railway_motive_power_and_rolling_stock_(1901)_(14738062926).jpg: is a more specific tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, that's one of Fae's mass uploads. It is PD-US-expired as it was originally published in the U.S. in 1901, I have added that tag to the image on Commons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've removed the image - the source indicates that it was from the Pittsburgh and Western, not the Providence and Worcester. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: does this pass the image review now? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from John M Wolfson[edit]

  • Leads generally should not exceed four paragraphs in length.
    Lead is now four paragraphs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • against expectations, [the ICC let the P&W go] is not supported by the body.
    In the words of Hartley, "Eder suggested P&W might resume independent operation. Remember that this was at a time when large rail mergers were occurring with regularity. Spinoffs were uncommon, and the idea of a resurrected P&W seemed quite ridiculous". I've added this quote to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unusual shareholding rules are mentioned frequently but never elaborated to the best of my knowledge.
    It was specifically about special rules that protected the interests of minority shareholders. Even if you had a majority of shares, your ability to control the company was heavily restricted. Will specify that tomorrow (and get to the rest of these). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So, basically the 1844 charter of the company was written with a voting clause that protected the rights of smaller shareholders against larger ones. Penn Central had 28% of the company's shares, but this clause translated that into just 3% voting power. The rest of the company's shareholders didn't get onboard with PC's plans, and instead agreed to cancel the lease and become independent. The New Haven, the previous lease owner, held just 91 of 35,000 shares by 1905, and an attempt to rewrite laws to let it purchase the company by only getting half of its shares was defeated by P&W shareholders [2]. This is mentioned at Two years later, the company incorporated in Delaware, while maintaining the voting rules from the company's original 1844 charter. and The same rules that left the New Haven unable to take over the P&W also frustrated the Penn Central, which found itself with only 3% voting power, despite both leasing the company and inheriting the New Haven's portion of the company's shares. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Serving this customer [Arnold Lumber] requires P&W trains to travel 5 miles (8.0 km) farther southward on the Northeast Corridor than for any other customer, finding space between Amtrak trains which travel up to 150 miles per hour (240 km/h) on this particular segment Is that particularly significant/unique?
    Two different sources specifically called this fact out (Karr Hartley 2016 and Heppner) so I felt it was worthy of attention. And to be travelling 5 miles down one of the busiest rail lines in the country to serve a customer that only takes a car or two at a time is pretty unique dedication to serving every customer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I suggest Karr 2017, Hartley 1994, Hartley 2016, and Gennesee 2016 be spun off into short-form citations with the likes of {{sfn}}; it makes them much more readable, and with specific page numbers somewhat improves verifiability.
    In progress. Will be done soon. I disagree on Gennesee 2016, it's only cited 3 times in the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Karr 2017, Hartley 1994, and Hartley 2016 have been converted to Sfn format. @John M Wolfson: what are your thoughts on my changes so far? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More to come. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging User:John M Wolfson. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm still not satisfied as to how exactly the PC's 28 percent got translated to 3 percent voting power; maybe seek the original charter if not an imposition, but otherwise no biggie. The only other concern I have is that it's listed as the 1999 Regional Railroad of the Year, but this is neither mentioned in the prose nor cited. I think you can kill two birds with one stone on this one. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Railway Age awards the titles of "Short Line Railroad of the Year" and "Regional Railroad of the Year" to one railroad each every year. The P&W appears to have won this award in the regional category in 1999, but I can't find reliable sourcing for this (I'd probably have to get a copy of Railway Age from 1999), so I'll just remove it.
As for the 28 percent to 3 percent, here's the exact wording from Hartley 2016: Eder explains that PC became owner of New Haven's 28 percent of P&W stock. But voting clauses, dating back to the original charters and retained by the reincorporated P&W, gave PC just 3 percent of voting power. After several state and federal court battles, these conditions were upheld. Ultimately, the Interstate Commerce Commission agreed with an ICC examiner who recommended that the small railroad be allowed to go its own way. I'm not sure if it would be original research to go look at the charter myself and then say "this rule caused Penn Central to have very little control of the company". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that would be a case where primary sources are acceptable and would improve the article, and I personally would do so, but if that's an imposition I'll let it slide and support this pending image/source/non-prose reviews. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Lead

  • What is a "shortline" railroad?
    A Shortline railroad is one that operates a relatively short amount of track, as opposed to a Class 1 railroad. This is mostly used in North America, so I can see why someone from elsewhere wouldn't immediately get the meaning. I've linked the term at the first use in the lead and the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "A fast success" "fast" is ambiguous when talking about trains; suggest using another word (or deleting/rephrasing)
    I think you know what I meant, but I do see how "fast" could be interpreted to mean the trains ran very quickly. I changed this to "A successful railroad". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link single-track railway, double-track railway
    Both linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You say "85 years" twice (once would be enough)
    Yeah, that is duplicative. I've remove the first mention. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "trains of stone" Ambiguity here/ I presume you mean trains carrying stone
    Yes, unit trains of trap rock. Changed to "unit trains of crushed stone" which I think makes it clearer. 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Original Providence and Worcester Railroad

End of independence

  • I don't see the need for the double-indenting of the "Plans for regained independence" subsection.
    Oops, that was from before I restructured part of the article, and missed that was a double indented header. Corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What's the source for the quote in the box?
    Hartley 1994, which I tried to specify in the bottom of the quote. Changed to a Sfn. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The new Providence and Worcester Railroad

  • Although we can guess what ICC stands for, better to define the acronym explicitly (same with USRA)
    Done. I did this in the lead previously but forgot about the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Penn Central was unwilling to allow this to happen" Why? If they were reluctant to acquire and only wished to shut it down
    They wanted to abandon most of the line, but keep the tracks at both ends to serve major customers that were present there. If P&W survived, they wouldn't have direct access to that traffic. PC also wanted P&W's real estate in Providence. I've added mention of both of these things to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In 1974, the railroad purchased" Another ambiguity; had to read to the end of the sentence to find out which railroad
    I see how this could be ambiguous; changed to "P&W". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "For motive power, P&W initially operated a small fleet of 5 ALCO RS-3 locomotives and 5 cabooses" 5 -> "five" Do cabooses provide motive power?
    No, but at that time every train was required to have a caboose on the end. So to run 5 trains, you need 5 cabooses. This ended in the 1980s when the End-of-train device made them largely unnecessary (though P&W used cabooses until at least the 1990s for trains on the Northeast Corridor). Changed to "five ALCO RS-3 locomotives, plus five cabooses". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "order for 5 new" -> "order for five new "
    Changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "80 M-420s" -> "eighty M-420s"
    MOS says numbers 10 and greater can be spelled out or in numeral form. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think Hawkeye is saying that two consecutive numbers in a different context can be confusing and suboptimal, so "eighty M-420s" is still better notwithstanding the MOS. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Link "representative"
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Any reason not to use the acronym P&W here?
    The only reasons is a desire not to always use the same "P&W" acronym. Writing gets kind of dry if you use the exact same terminology every single instance the name comes up in the entire article (the string "P&W") comes up 86 times right now). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In December 1987, the railroad's owner, Capital Properties Inc. " Wait, when did it become the owner?
    Hartley 1994 says Capital Properties was a holding company for the P&W. I'm not certain when exactly it became owner, but it appears Capital Properties owned the company from at least when it became independent in 1973. Eder was the majority shareholder of both Capital Properties and the P&W. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the lead it says the stone came from quarries in Queens but this is not in the body
    Huh? The stone is destined for Queens. P&W also signed an agreement to run trains of stone from Connecticut quarries to Queens over the Northeast Corridor.
  • Any prospect of obtaining a map of the current system?
    See the infobox. Much of that was me personally messing with a relation on OSM. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good. Supporting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Sources look good quality to me.
  • fn 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41: page number?
    Page numbers added. Hopefully I didn't miss anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • fn 4, 43, 46, 48, 51, 60, 62, 63: inconsistent date format. Switch to mdy per the other references
    All instances of different date formats have been switched. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • fn 9, 43, 56: CS1 error. Remove the url-status parameter
    Parameter removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • fn 14: consider moving into the references with the other books. Do not use abbreviation SC - spell out the name in full like in the References. (MOS:POSTABBR)
    Abbreviation spelled out. I am uncertain if adding to references is worthwhile. I am also away from home right now. I will decide tomorrow when I get back home. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • fn 16, 20, 21 : p. should be pp.
    Corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • fn 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41: Include the name of the city of publication where it is not included in name of the newspaper
    City name added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • fn 43: WJAR should not be italic
    Disagree. I converted this from cite website to cite news, and the italics were still present per the template. Why would italics be wrong here, since WJAR is the source of the news? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's the publisher. If you used the publisher card instead of the work one, it would not be italic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • fn 46, 51: Publisher?
    The publisher of both is G&W; I've added G&W's name to both. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Put the References into alphabetical order of author
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I intend to leave some comments here within the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead:
  • "The New Haven tolerated making lease payments for 76 years, until that company was merged into Penn Central (PC) at the end of 1968." - Optionally, you could clarify that the NH was the company that was merged into PC. Also, would it be easier to say "The NH leased the P&W for 76 years"?
  • "P&W also signed an agreement to run unit trains of crushed stone from Connecticut quarries to Queens" - Even though we both know where Queens is, I would say "to Queens, New York", for clarity.
  • "P&W owns or has operating rights over 612 miles (985 km) of trackage in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York." - Could this be mentioned earlier in the lead? The ownership/trackage rights are already mentioned in the first sentence of the first paragraph.
  • " P&W freight trains coexist with" - For some reason, I feel like "coexist" may not be the right word. Maybe "operate alongside"?
Original Providence and Worcester Railroad:
  • "Railroads were taking hold across New England by the 1840s" - To me, "taking hold" sounds a bit colloquial.
  • "Despite fears the company would fail, it announced on October 8, 1845, that thanks to a $100,000 (2.91 million in 2021) investment by Jacob Little, the requisite $1,000,000 in funding had been reached, plus a further $100,000 for the Massachusetts section of the line" - I'm confused as to what this sentence implies. It can mean one of three things:
    1. Little provided funding only for the Massachusetts section of the line, in which case only $900,000 would have been raised.
    2. Little provided $100,000 for the completion of the railroad, and Little also gave an additional $100,000 for the Massachusetts section, bringing the investment to $1 million.
    3. Little provided $100,000 for the completion of the railroad, and someone else gave $100,000 for the Massachusetts section, bringing the investment to $1 million.
  • The source says The committee for soliciting subscriptions to the Providence and Worcester Railroad met at the Town House yesterday, and reported that the whole stock, $1,000,000, had been subscribed under the Rhode Island charter. In addition to this, about $100,000 have been subscribed under the Massachusetts charter, making in all $1,100,000, being $100,000 above the estimates. Jacob Little & Co., of New York, subscribed $100,000." How do you interpret that? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, I see. In that case, can we clarify that the $100,000 for MA was in addition to the $1 million that the railroad had after Little's donation? – Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rewritten as Despite fears the company would fail, it announced on October 8, 1845, that thanks to additional funding, including a $100,000 (2.91 million in 2021) investment by Jacob Little, the requisite $1,000,000 had been reached, plus a further $100,000 for the Massachusetts section of the line, and that construction would begin immediately. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "no government assistance or loans were involved" - This also seems redundant, given that you just mentioned that the railroad was entirely privately funded.
  • I don't interpret the text as saying that. Jacob Little did invest $100,000, but there is no discussion of where the remainder of the funding came from. The company had $800,000 of funding as mentioned just before this, but I don't see anywhere else that states all the funding was private. Towns and states sometimes funded railroads, especially when they wanted their lines to serve certain areas. The Connecticut Central Railroad (1871) and the Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad are two examples. Given this, I felt it was worthwhile to specify funding was entirely from private sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I meant to say that the article currently states: "The funding was obtained entirely from private sources; no government assistance or loans were involved". If towns and states funded railroads, then some people may consider that "government" funding. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh. Silly me. Yeah, that's a valid point. I've removed the redundancy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Construction was more expensive than anticipated" - I'd say "Construction had been more expensive", as you're talking about a conditional statement here.
  • "The takeover was defeated by the company's president and clerk refusing to allow a vote to approve the new directors to be recognized" - I suggest rephrasing this in active voice, e.g. "The company's president and clerk defeated the takeover, refusing to allow a vote to approve the new directors to be recognized".
  • "when it began to be used to import coal from ships" - Instead of "began to be used", I'd say "was used", since you just mentioned that the branch had recently opened.
  • I gave the source here another read, and then rewrote to "The branch opened the same year, and provided an alternate routing for coal imports that avoided the use of horses through downtown Providence." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
End of independence:
  • "$897,500–a peculiar holding" - Minor issue, but this should probably be either an emdash or a spaced endash per MOS:DASH, even if the source uses an unspaced endash.
  • "In 1892, control of the P&W passed to the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad, when it took over the New York, Providence and Boston" - I think this could be rephrased more directly: "In 1892, New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad gained control of the P&W when it took over the New York, Providence and Boston."
  • Changed to "In 1892, the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad gained control of the P&W when it leased the New York, Providence and Boston."
  • "The New Haven was to be the operator of the P&W for the next 77 years." - The conditional "to be" should only be used if the NH decided on the 77-year term back in 1892. If not, the conditional should be removed, e.g. "The New Haven operated the P&W for the next 77 years", as you're not using the conditional statement to describe something that (at the time) was proposed to happen.
  • The idea here was to convey that this would be the situation for the next 77 years, based on our knowledge now in 2022, not that the lease term was for 77 years (it was a 99 year lease, actually). Changed to "The New Haven operated the P&W for the next 77 years." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "New Haven only owned a very small number of shares – only 91 out of 35,000" - The word "only" is repeated in close succession here.
  • "Both freight and passenger train traffic was initially strong" - "Was" should be "were", since the sentence is essentially parsed as "both... were strong".
  • "15 passenger trains traveled the line each day" - The start of the sentence should be spelled out as "Fifteen" per MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • "after experimenting with four local trains each way in 1953, the schedule was cut back to the previous one per day in 1954, before this one round trip was also discontinued by 1957" - The sentence contains a dangling modifier, since "the schedule was cut back" is a modifier for the clause "after experimenting with four local trains each way in 1953". It was the P&W, not the schedule, that experimented with four trains. Also, I suggest using another conjunction instead of "before", as it's potentially confusing when you're describing something that happened after 1954.
  • Rewritten as "Passenger train service on the line was cut back during the 1950s as well; after experimenting with four local trains each way in 1953, the New Haven cut the schedule back to one local round trip per day in 1954; this round trip was also discontinued by 1957." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The State of Maine Express ended operations in 1960" - This duplink should be removed, as the State of Maine Express is already linked earlier in the same paragraph.
  • "with the last one ending in 1966 with Eder as the Providence and Worcester's new president" - The word "with" is also repeated in close succession, and the first use of the word is as a conjunction. I suggest making this its own clause: "The group launched three proxy fights to take control; the last one ended in 1966 with Eder as the Providence and Worcester's new president."
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Providence_and_Worcester_Railroad/archive1&oldid=1127048289"