Template:Did you know nominations/Stanwood station

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: promoted by Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Stanwood station, H and H Railroad[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that Stanwood station was once served by "the Dinky", claimed to be the world's shortest steam railway? Source: The Seattle Times (October 30, 1949); Stanwood Camano News
- ALT1:... that construction of Stanwood station was delayed due to a disagreement over platform height? Source: The Everett Herald

Reviewed: Wonder Gadot (1/2), Martial law in Pierce County (2/2)

5x expanded by SounderBruce (talk). Second article written by NearEMPTiness (talk). Nominated by SounderBruce (talk) at 23:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC).

long enough (N.B. was still marked as stub in Talk page), new enough, neutral in tone.
All non lede paragraphs have references, images in article have appropriate licencing. No apparently copyright violations.
QPQ done.
I personally find the first hook more interesting than the second one, although I wonder if it's an issue if the "Stanwood station" the title refers to is the one build in 2009 and hence isn't the depot in Stanwood which was serviced by "Dinky". Is this possibly misleading to conflate the two as this hook seems to do?

second opinion requested, if possible
Same location, thus same article (which can cover both as "a" [train station] in Stanwood). If the depot building was still around, it would likely have been incorporated into this new station's design.

Ref 9 refers to it as "the dinky" not "Dinky"; ref 10 also refers to it as the Dinky. Perhaps the wording in the hook should be changed with the addition of the definite article. I don't have access to Ref 8.

Added article.

Second hook is cited in article and backed up by refs, but I don't find it super interesting. Plenty of construction projects get delayed over things like this, no?

Usually, things like platform height are set in stone by some kind of standard ages before a new station is built. It's a bit of an unusual situation.

@SounderBruce: I'd just like the first hook to be clearer, or to have a second opinion that it's actually all right. Umimmak (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Umimmak: See my replies above. I have also added a second article about the railroad, which was recently created by another editor. Sounder Bruce 06:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Okay I'm satisfied with those responses. If you are to bold-link Dinky as well (which is long, new, neutral, etc. enough although I have some issues with prose esp. MOS:CURRENT w.r.t. describing its location and I have doubts about the notability; although I will take it on good faith the sources I don't have access to sufficiently demonstrate that, but a second opinion would be nice for the article H and H Railroad. Also NB that its talk page still marks it as a stub.), then we just need a second QPQ. Umimmak (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Umimmak: The second QPQ has been linked above. As for the notability of a standalone article, it clearly qualifies with its coverage by secondary sources (including the more regional Seattle Times well after the fact). Sounder Bruce 07:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Like I said I don't have access to all the sources, including said Seattle Times article to know if it's significant coverage or if they're just trivial/passing mentions, but I'll take it AGF that it is though. Second QPQ done, so approved. Umimmak (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)