Wikipedia:Peer review/Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad/archive1
As I add details to this article, it's starting to look like a featured article candidate. At this point, I'd like others to take a look at it to see what else should be added beyond what I've already got on the to do list in order to get it up to featured quality. I've found a mix of paper, governmental and website references (listed in the article), but there have got to be others out there. Thanks! slambo 19:56, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in knowing what major commodities the railway currently ships and/or who its major customers are. Also, are you interested in some pictures of DM&E hoppers? If so, I may have some. JYolkowski 22:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I remember seeing something about the railroad's major customers and commodities hauled on their website. I'll see if I can find it again. As to the photos, yeah, that'd be great. I'd been thinking of renaming the "Locomotives" section to "Rolling stock" and describing more than just the motive power. slambo 14:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Cool, I uploaded one this afternoon. Two other minor things I noticed about the article: I noticed that the map was "as of 2002". Has the DM&E's route changed significantly since then? If not, would it make more sense to say "as of 2004/2005" (or if it has, to update the map, although that might be more work)? Also I've noticed that "Class 1/2/3" is used in the article. Personally, I tend to think that using "Class I/II/III" is somewhat more correct, as that's what the AAR uses (although I have seen both formats in other places, so you probably could make an argument either way). As for the references, I think they look great as they are. JYolkowski 02:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the photo upload and copyedit. The map is one that I transcribed from the 2002 Trains Magazine article in the references. I'll have to check a couple other references to see if there are any changes since then. I have no strong preference for 1/2/3 vs I/II/III, it's just easier for me to hit the 2 key once than it is for the Shift and I key combination twice; maybe this is something that we should bring up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains as part of the standardization discussion? slambo 15:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, here isn't the place for an in-depth discussion of the merits of each format. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Class 1/2/3 vs. Class I/II/III. JYolkowski 02:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the photo upload and copyedit. The map is one that I transcribed from the 2002 Trains Magazine article in the references. I'll have to check a couple other references to see if there are any changes since then. I have no strong preference for 1/2/3 vs I/II/III, it's just easier for me to hit the 2 key once than it is for the Shift and I key combination twice; maybe this is something that we should bring up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains as part of the standardization discussion? slambo 15:16, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
- Cool, I uploaded one this afternoon. Two other minor things I noticed about the article: I noticed that the map was "as of 2002". Has the DM&E's route changed significantly since then? If not, would it make more sense to say "as of 2004/2005" (or if it has, to update the map, although that might be more work)? Also I've noticed that "Class 1/2/3" is used in the article. Personally, I tend to think that using "Class I/II/III" is somewhat more correct, as that's what the AAR uses (although I have seen both formats in other places, so you probably could make an argument either way). As for the references, I think they look great as they are. JYolkowski 02:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I remember seeing something about the railroad's major customers and commodities hauled on their website. I'll see if I can find it again. As to the photos, yeah, that'd be great. I'd been thinking of renaming the "Locomotives" section to "Rolling stock" and describing more than just the motive power. slambo 14:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Two things: to be honest, the lead section just doesn't grab me. It needs something to make things more interesting to regular readers. Secondly, I notice that Trains magazine was referenced. It doesn't seem to be in the references section. Could we put that in there? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:26, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'll work on the lead, but I'm curious why these two references weren't noticed:
- Gilchinski, Steve (February 2002), Coming: A third Powder River Basin player, Trains Magazine, p. 10-11.
- Gilchinski, Steve (May 2002), DM&E begomes "a significant national player", Trains Magazine, p. 14.
- slambo 11:55, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I'll work on the lead, but I'm curious why these two references weren't noticed: