---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Pi.1415926535 (talk · contribs) 08:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Trainsandotherthings (talk · contribs) 02:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Placing my name on this review. Per discussion on the nominator's talk, my review will almost certainly take more than the regular 1 week due to the length and complexity of the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Minor items I identified have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Good here after a full prose review. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Extensive references section (about 400 references in total) but there are no issues with the guidelines for reference sections. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   References are what I would expect for an article in this topic area. Primarily contemporary newspaper articles and reports from the railroad commissioners, along with more recent publications covering the subject. Article is exhaustively cited inline at a level that more than meets the GA requirements. From a look through the references, I don't see anything that would be inappropriate for GA level sourcing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecks found no issues. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Spotchecks found no issues. Earwig not run due to very few sources being indexable, AGF on print-only sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Now that I've read through the article more, I'm confident this criterion is met as all significant aspects of the company are covered. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Satisfied that this criterion is met. The article is a bit lengthy due to the sheer number of predecessor companies, but I don't see anything that appears to veer too far into detail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   From further reading the article, I have not found any issues with this criterion. I will check this again with my final spotchecks and comment if I see an issue, but I do not expect this to happen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Stable history. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I did a cursory review of every image, and most are public domain from their age; the remainder are appropriately licensed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are clearly relevant and have good captions and alt text. I'm personally not a huge fan of galleries, but in this article they don't violate policy, guidelines, or the MOS so I can't find any fault with them from a reviewer's standpoint. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article is ready for GA status, and I will be promoting it shortly. Good work. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

• You say "Its earliest predecessor opened in 1863" in the lead but have the dates of operation start in 1861 in the infobox. In the body, I see the Worcester Horse Railway was chartered in 1861. At least personally, I've always used dates of operation to indicate the years the company actually ran service, not simply when it existed on paper.
  •  Done
• What year is the interactive route map showing? Is it 1918 like the length quoted in the infobox? I see the system map is dated 1922.
  • It shows the maximum extent, including a few segments that were never open at the same time. I've added parentheticals to clarify.
• Suggest clarifying in the second paragraph that the Worcester Horse Railway is the earliest predecessor.
  •  Done
• "Other companies built a network of rural streetcar lines in the 1890s and 1900s, connecting Worcester with smaller cities and towns across Worcester County." This also included connections to other streetcar networks, right? Maybe that should be mentioned.
  • That sentence only refers to the WCSR predecessors. While some of them did connect to non-WCSR systems, which are discussed in the text where noteworthy, there's no need to mention in the lede.
• "...the street railway industry began a steep decline in the late 1910s" begs the question of why the industry declined. Maybe a brief "due to competition from cars and buses" or something similar would help here.
  • It was a complicated set of factors, as much due to labor and material costs as from competition. It's addressed in the Decline section, but I don't think it needs to be explained further here.
• "It was sold that December and renamed Worcester Bus Company the next year." Should this be "renamed the Worcester Bus Company"?
  •  Done
• I'm not going to mandate this as part of the review, but I have been questioned on providing sources for the dimensions and use of standard gauge, even though anyone with familiarity with the subject knows its use was nearly universal by 1900 in the U.S. and particularly in New England.
•  Done Well, I got lucky and found a source.
• Did the company have a logo that could be added to the infobox, like United Electric Railways? If not, don't worry about it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that I've seen. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

System

• "They operated largely on public roads rather than on private right-of-way" should this be rights-of-way?
  •  Done
• "WCSR built Gates Lane carhouse about 1⁄2 mile (1 km) to the west" can this be modified to read 1/2 of a mile (1 km)?
  •  Not done While it's technically possible to do that, it doesn't sound correct to me, especially in encyclopedia voice.
• Very little I felt needed adjustment in this section, well done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we start off with some sort of acknowledgement that the Worcester Horse Railway is the earliest predecessor? Right now it's kind of an abrupt change from the lead, to the point I was lost briefly.
  •  Done
• Suggest linking the word charter. I've had it asked of me several times what the term means, though you and I are very familiar with the concept.
  •  Done
• I'm not going to make this a requirement, but I do suggest providing conversions for inflation where dollar amounts are used given the long time between the covered history and the present day.
  •  Done Think I caught them all.
• Are some of these subsidiaries worth giving redlinks for potential future articles?
  • I previously created redirects for all of them, so I don't think redlinks are feasible.
• I suggest reworking the organization of the article a bit to clearly separate the predecessors and the final, combined company.
  • I'm open to suggestions, but not sure how to do this. The current organization was the best I could figure out.
• There's a bit of an issue with using WCSR where the Worcester and Clinton Street Railway is discussed. Can you make it clearer that when you use WCSR there, you aren't referring to the Worcester and Clinton Street Railway? The first time I read this, I thought you were using WCSR for both companies and had to reread to understand what was going on.
  •  Done
• Watch for consistency with the Citizens' Street Railway - I see it in places with the apostrophe both before and after the "s".
  •  Done
• Several extensions were opened over the next three years Can you clarify in the prose if these were continuations of existing lines or new lines that started from points on existing lines?
  •  Done
• The WCSR was relatively late to use electric power Do we have any information on why this was the case? I know the Dictionary of Worcester source does not elaborate on the reason for this.
  • No idea, unfortunately.
• I don't think it's explicitly called out anywhere that the trolleys were powered with overhead lines and trolley poles. I think this is prudent to mention somewhere in the article. It may not be obvious to a reader not as familiar with the subject.
  •  Done
• My college professors would want me to ask you about significant figures. You show mileage to the nearest 100th pretty consistently, is that the level of accuracy given in the sources?
  • Yes, the annual reports use hundredths.
• It opened a 2.4-mile (3.9 km) line in Clinton on September 2, 1893. The 2.4-mile (3.9 km) line ran between Lancaster Mills and South Lancaster... Assuming the double listing of the length was an oversight?
  •  Done
• Clinton service thereafter terminated at Wood Square, with passengers given free transfer over the leased section. Shouldn't it be "transfers", since "passengers" is plural?
  •  Done
• This allowed suburban cars to circle the Common or be through-routed with other lines, rather than the previous time-consuming process of changing ends to reverse direction. Can you make it a little clearer what "changing ends" means? I know it means lowering and raising the trolley poles at either end, among other things, but I don't know that it would be clear to a general audience.
  •  Done Reworded.

I have reviewed up to the section header "New Haven control" and will pick up from there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• the New Haven must fully divest from the streetcar systems by July 1909. I haven't been able to find a satisfactory answer for this, but is the use of "must" correct here? It came across to me as being present tense (like "you must do xyz") instead of the intended past tense.
  •  Done I think it was technically correct, but I agree that it could be confusing as written.
• By 1912, the WCSR system had been formed from 17 formerly independent companies. If I understand this correctly, the company by that name was formed before 1912, so could this be reworded to something like "By 1912, the WCSR included the assets of 17 formerly independent companies" or similar?
  • I think the current wording is good - judging from the source, the WCSR was probably one of those 17.
• Where is Plummer's Corner? It's brought up several times but no detailed location is given and there's no linked article for it either.
  •  Done
• I suggest combining these two sentences: The latter route was ultimately chosen. Service began on October 21, 1899.
  •  Done
• The New Haven-controlled People's Tramway obtained majority stock control the Worcester and Webster in January 1901 Looks like you're missing "of" here.
  •  Done
• The Webster and Dudley obtained legislative permission in August 1901 to lease other street railways Since we've just established the company ran in Connecticut as well, I recommend clarifying the state of Massachusetts is the one that gave this permission.
  •  Done
• The W&CE was renamed as the Consolidated Railway in May 1904 Is this the same as the "Consolidated Railways" (with an "s" at the end) mentioned in the "New Haven control" section, or are they distinct entities? If they're separate, I suggest a clarifying statement to that effect. Prudent of you not to use the old nickname of "the Consolidated" for the New Haven in this article.
  •  Done They're the same; I've corrected.
• the New Haven sublet its Connecticut streetcar properties to the Connecticut Company to nominally separate ownership Was this in response to the 1906 Massachusetts law covered earlier, or for other reasons?
  • It's not clear. There were a LOT of moving pieces, both on the legal side and the corporate side, and the New Haven did everything possible to obfuscate the latter.
• In the paragraph covering the strike, I'm not clear on when the strike actually ended. Was the strike still happening when the temporary suspension of service due to a winter storm happened?
  • I'm not sure either. The strike plus some other factors threw the Shore Line into receivership, and some lines never resumed service. The Connecticut Company took its lines back on April 1, 1920; it's not clear whether that was before or after service resumed as far north as North Grosvenordale, and whether the Connecticut Company continued to use the scabs. I've clarified the wording a bit, but that's about all I can do.
• the WCSR never again paid a dividend above 6% after merging with suburban lines in 1901. Should this be "the suburban lines"?
  •  Done
• In 1931, the Standard Oil Company purchased the Palmer–Southbridge–Worcester right-of-way for construction of a gasoline pipeline. Standard Oil was broken up in 1911, so you want to link to Standard Oil of New York (Socony). That exact term redirects to Mobil, and that article's history section has been split out into its own article, so your best bet for a target is History of ExxonMobil#Standard Oil of New York. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Great catch! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For AP releases such as "Worcester Trollymen Accept Six-Day Week" I have been told it is best practice to include the parameter agency=Associated Press in the citation. Same goes for other agencies like UPI. Consider this a suggestion, not anything I would condition passing the article on.
  •  Done I checked all the post-1920 sources and added agency when appropriate. There might be a handful of pre-1920 agency articles cited here, but I didn't find any.
• Be consistent with either "Worcester Transportation Associates" or "the Worcester Transportation Associates".
  •  Done
• $597,057 federal grant could use an inflation conversion.
  •  Done Damn, I thought I caught them all before, but missed this one.
• Do we know if any buses were preserved?
  • None that are mentioned in any sources, but unlike streetcars, there's no specific mention that any weren't.
• This takes me to the end of the prose. Once you're had a chance to respond to these comments, I'll do the second half of the spotcheck and give the article a once over. After that, I expect to pass it. Sorry for the slow reviewing, I was out of state with limited computer access for a bit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No apology needed - you've done a marvelous job reviewing a very large and dense article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the following sources today and yesterday:

• Dictionary of Worcester (Massachusetts) and its vicinity, p. 30
• The Street Railway Journal, April 5, 1902, pp. 419-427
• Worcester & Southbridge Road Into Hands of Receiver, The Worcester Spy, August 29, 1903
• Meriden to Worcester, The Meriden Record-Journal, February 1, 1901
• A Complete Reversal, Boston Evening Transcript, August 17, 1906

I have not found any issues with accuracy or close paraphrasing based on my checks of these sources. I will check 5 more when I am about to conclude the review. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked five more sources, and found no issues with verifiability or copyright:

• Big Shake Up In Car Routes, The Worcester Spy, November 9, 1902
• Worcester Firm May Cease Bus Service, The Morning Union, July 13, 1971
• Bus Company Rescued, The Morning Union, July 31, 1971
• Worcester Traction Co. To Dissolve, Boston Evening Transcript, November 30, 1901
• Marlboro & Westboro Street Ry, The Boston Globe, February 7, 1906 Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]