Jump to content

Talk:Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleDakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
April 4, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 5, 2005Good article nomineeListed
August 4, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
February 9, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 7, 2005.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad's plan to expand into Wyoming's Powder River Basin would be the largest new railroad construction in the United States since the American Civil War?
Current status: Delisted good article

Largest new construction?

[edit]

There's no way that the statement that it would be be largest new railway in the US since the civil war can be correct.Philip 08:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My reference for this fact was the Hetland article, listed in the References section. slambo 11:30, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
After rereading your comment, here's another comment. It's not the "largest new railway" is the "largest new railway construction" with the emphasis on the construction of new track (nearly 300 miles of new right-of-way and track). The only similar projects that I can think of off the top of my head are both Southern Pacific Railroad projects: Palmdale cutoff through Cajon Pass in California and the Lucin cutoff bypassing the Great Salt Lake in Utah. I'll have to check with my resources on the total lengths of new track with these projects. slambo 15:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
I just found a more reliable source for the "largest new construction" claim, but it shortens the time frame substantially. The Trains magazine article cited in the References section says that this project is the largest new railroad construction since the Milwaukee Road completed the Pacific extension in 1909. I'll be updating the article to reflect this shortly... slambo 23:43, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

CP Rail Acquistion

[edit]

Here is the article if you can't believe it. http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Media/News/General/2007/CP+announces+agreement+to+acquire+DM+and+E+Railroad.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistyben (talk • contribs) 19:29, September 9, 2007

The CP has agreed to acquire the DM&E, but has not yet done so. The contract has yet to be signed, and the STB has to give its approval for the merger, which might take some time. In the meantime the DM&E will continue to operate independently, and the shares being purchased by the CP will be held in trust. CP will not actually acquire control until the STB approves the merger. Kablammo 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mistyben, we do believe it; we read the whole thing as well as other articles about the purchase agreement and found that DM&E and IC&E will continue operating independently until the purchase is approved by the STB and finalized. Slambo (Speak) 11:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It took a year, but the acquisition is now complete and CP assumed control. There may still be a few sentences in the article that need updating, but it is now appropriate to list DM&E as defunct with CP as the successor. Slambo (Speak) 16:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

  1. The lead needs to be reduced to four paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
  2. There are a few external links included within the text of the article. These should either be converted to a citation (if it is a reliable source) or moved to the external links section.
  3. "1986–1996: startup and initial expansion" Startup should be capitalized.
  4. "From startup to the railroad's 10 year anniversary" "ten-year"
  5. Does the citation at the end of the "Expansion plans" section cover all of the details of the prior two paragraphs? If so, it should also be added to them as well.
  6. "One resident summed up the problem saying that if the railroad didn't go through the city, "it would just go through someone else's place" in the country." Contractions should not be included in articles unless used in quotes. The quote needs a citation as well.
  7. "The STB's approval is expected to be finalized after a 30 day waiting period." "30-day"
  8. "During the final negotiations over the Fiscal Year 2006 federal transportation bill, Senator John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, tacked on language that would dramatically expand a federal loan program and help DM&E get a $2.5 billion government loan." Needs a citation. Well, a citation already in the article covers that so I put a copy of it on that sentence. Unfortunately that sentence seems to be plagiarized from that source and needs to be fixed or something. Spiesr (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "Senator Mark Dayton, a Minnesota Democrat who has taken the side of the Mayo Clinic, an opponent of the expansion, questioned the rail company's ability to repay the loan—one of the largest federal loans ever given to a private company, he says. "It's a real perversion of the process and the public interest", says Dayton." This should be reworded, it currently doesn't read very well.
  10. "Kevin Schieffer, president and chief executive officer of the DM&E, says arguments against the project have no merit. "We are very solid financially", he adds. "The project has overwhelming support throughout our entire region."" Needs a citation.
  11. "On February 26, 2007, the FRA rejected the $2.3 billion loan to DM&E." Above it says 2.5, and here 2.3. Make sure it is consistent.
  12. "While the loan was not approved, the later agreement of the Canadian Pacific Railway to acquire the DM&E (discussed below) will provide..." "will" Has this already occurred? If so, this needs to be updated.
  13. "In its first twenty years of operations, the railroad's revenues had increased more than tenfold, from US$22 million..." The wikilinks for the dollars should be introduced earlier in the article, not here. Fix all other occurrences.
  14. "...with US$290 million projected in 2007 and US$340 million for 2008." Were the projected figures accurate?
  15. "DM&E operated over 12 subdivisions:" Expand on this a bit. Provide a few more details on the subdivisions.
  16. Are the two company officers likely to ever have articles? If not, remove the wikilinks.
  17. There are a few single sentences in the article. To improve the flow of the article, either expand on these or incorporate them into another paragraph.
  18. There are multiple dead links/redirects that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.
  19. The references section should come before the external links.

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll help do a final copyedit of the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say I have seen this list. On first glance, a few of them look like {{sofixit}} issues (e.g. capitalization and using words rather than numbers), but other items on this list need further consideration. I will research and update as needed. Slambo (Speak) 10:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these are easy to fix, and I can fix them if the the more complicated issues are dealt with. As I mentioned above, I'll do a copyedit of the article if the above issues are addressed. I think it's important to point out obvious errors as it allows current editors of the article as well as others reading the review to in the future prevent them from occurring in the future. As you address each of the issues, just mention under each one and I'll strike it off as its completed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This week has proven much busier for me in real life than I expected. Today and tomorrow I am participating in a local Relay for Life to benefit the American Cancer Society so I'll be offline to finish off this week, but I'm setting aside time on Sunday to work on this. Slambo (Speak) 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, articles are always left on hold for a week. If progress is made at its conclusion, then the hold may be extended. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One week later, some progress was made, so I'll leave the article on hold for another week. Try and get to the bigger issues and I can help with the copyediting. I'm watching this page to keep up with the progress. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to get to this yesterday but family troubles popped up. Well, "best laid plans of mice and men" and all that, so I'm working on this a bit today. I've combined two lead section paragraphs to reduce it to four paragraphs; if anything is removed from them, I would think that the only thing we can take out while still leaving a concise summary of the article is the technicality about Cedar being a subsidiary (for which I found a ref today). On point number 5, the section named "Expansion plans," I found that the original reference had moved, so I searched for and found its new location and reread it. It does discuss parts of the rest of this section, but doesn't appear include the years that CNW and BN first built into the area, so I searched and found refs for both. Somewhere around the house I've got a copy of North Western Lines that deals with CNW's Powder River Basin line in depth, and when I find it, I'll add refs to it as well. Now, on to more items on the list... Slambo (Speak) 16:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 6 - that's not a contraction, it's a possessive. It's from the same article as the extended quote, as you can read in the new ref that I just added where the article was reprinted in a book that is available on limited preview at Google Books. Slambo (Speak) 16:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to "didn't", but I fixed it for you. I struck the issue since a source was found for the quote. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 8 - I've reworded this sentence so it's not a direct quote. Slambo (Speak) 16:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 10 - this was also a direct quote from the same article as referenced in point 8. I've reworded this and added the ref along with another direct quote I found just below it. Slambo (Speak) 16:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 9 - this came from, guess where, the same article as points 8 and 10. I've reworded it to avoid the problem and cited the quote. I'm sure a look through the article history will show us who we need to help with style guidelines on quoting articles. Slambo (Speak) 16:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 11 - the FRA press release cites 2.3, so I've updated the other amount to read "up to 2.5" instead. In this case, I think the FRA number is more reliable than the US News number. Slambo (Speak) 17:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point 12 - According to the current DME website ([1]), CP has not yet decided if it will actually pursue the Powder River Basin project, so I've changed "will" to "was expected to" for now. This story is still developing, so this could change in the future. On July 13, 2009, CP filed to completely adopt all DM&E/IC&E properties as its own, effective on October 11, 2009 (see the adoption filing and letter on DM&E's website front page). I haven't seen anything yet that confirms if the construction will continue. Slambo (Speak) 17:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's about all I have time to do today, I plan to work on this some more tomorrow. Slambo (Speak) 17:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I struck an addressed issue. I will leave the article on hold for one more week for the remaining issues. Address the expansion/update issues and I'll help with the rest. Let me know if you have any questions. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps: Kept

[edit]

Good work addressing the issues. I went through and addressed the remaining issues, so please review my edits. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for the online sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power Basin expansion

[edit]

If I read the article correctly, the expansion has yet not happened, and indeed the article ends by stating CP has abandoned the plans.

Generally the article needs rewriting to a basis on current affairs. Now you need to read through the entire text to find out what gives today. 90.229.34.175 (talk) 09:34, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

attempting to improve/update outdated citations

[edit]

Greetings, Apologies in advance. I am a fellow Wyomingite and Wikipedian, and I have found several outdated citations with outside links in this article that I believe I can help with. So far I have found an updated link for the first citation (at the end of the third paragraph). However, I have not found the way to make the correction to it yet, so I am waiting for an answer from the WP Teahouse and I hope to insert a link to the actual article that will replace the current dead link there. I also ran an analysis tool which made several changes. I am not done double-checking the changes that this tool made; I am trying to check that the changes I've made thus far are in fact helpful and accurate. I intend to return soon to continue my work to help improve this article. In the meantime, please do feel free to correct my work if you find it to be in error. Any input or assistance is appreciated. Teddy.bear307 (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment

[edit]

Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. Femke (alt) (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was last reviewed in 2009. Since then, it has not been fully maintained to GA standards. There are a number of areas lacking citations, and in general the article gives very little coverage post CP acquisition. There is clearly still history missing, as I found this from less than a year ago [2] and other sources are unused such as [3] [4] [5]. I am not satisfied this article meets the broadness criterion, and it certainly does not meet the verifiability criterion. The article does not make it clear which tense it wants to use for the railroad, either, mixing present and past tense. This would need a significant amount of work to maintain its GA status. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per reasons above. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dakota,_Minnesota_and_Eastern_Railroad&oldid=1194355306"