A fact from Iron Range and Huron Bay Railroad appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 December 2007, and was viewed approximately 3,407 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the Iron Range and Huron Bay Railroad never operated a single train, despite completing a 42-mile (68 km) line and its own ore dock at a cost of over two million dollars?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
I've changed the assessment to B-class; I wouldn't think there's that much more material to be added on such an ephemeral railroad. Grades over 5%? No wonder they were after Davis' scalp. Amazing that the railroad was completed before someone noticed. Choess (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources were found to be heavily reliant on the sensational side of that period newspapers. The RR's local historical society has reached out with a few corrections. More to come. A few detail are being cross checked and will be updated. I have added some quality references in the mean time. Dropping to C class until the questioned details are resolved. FullScale4Me (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you added those sources, unless we're talking about Barnett, so I've rolled the article back to the older version ([1]). If Barnett is demonstrably unreliable then we'd have a real problem as his article forms the basis for ours. Mackensen(talk) 02:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was Dobson I was referring to with this "Relies heavily on newspaper accounts from that period. Some fail detailed crosschecking." AND the unreliable reference as the casual researchers usually find his book first. Did you have to roll it ALL back? Did you even look at what I added in detail? I've seen your edits elsewhere and I am glad you are here but this shocked me.... FullScale4Me (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was very confused because you added Dobson, then flagged Dobson as an unreliable source. If there's a reliable source that discusses Dobson's unreliability then it would make sense to discuss that in a section on historiography or what not, but it didn't make sense to me to add it, and then mark our own article as unreliable! Mackensen(talk) 11:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for the actionable feedback. Calenderwise I appear to be a long timer here but am actually more of a pollywog than 10+ years experienced. FullScale4Me (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
