Canadian Pacific Railway is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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 Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
I am quite surprised that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling lists sulfur as acceptable in the Canadian column. In my experience, Canadians strongly prefer sulphur, so much so that whenever I see sulfur, I have to pause for a second before remembering that is how they spell it some other countries. The Oxford Canadian Dictionary uses sulphur as the primary entry, and sulfur as "var. of sulphur". And the CPR itself uses sulphur: "Sulphur". Canadian Pacific Railway. Retrieved 1 May 2016..
Fascinating, I had not known that two variants were in use. I would expect that common usage is the correct one to use here, so what does Google say? sulfur turns up 32,500,000 results, sulphur turns up 36,600,000 results, so either seem reasonably in use equally. For what it's worth. Damotclese (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further examination of the article allows me to make the determination that the article was written with an encyclopedic viewpoint in mind. There is little to no evidence of bias or problematic content in the article. Instead, the article is told as if one was reading from an encyclopedia in a library. Interestingly, one portion of the article covers the use of Chinese workers in the building of the railway's main lines and branches, which is a potentially troublesome topic for some. However, those who wrote out this article have clearly refined the article to the point that there is no evidence of racism or bias to one side of the conflict. It would be very easy for an individual to navigate to this particular page and input some choice comments about the labour that the Chinese immigrant workers in British Columbia partook in. However, there is no evidence of untoward content whether that is defined as racism or as bias. Some may argue that the article reads a little bit too much into the government and corporate sector of the company - there are plenty of references to the government proceedings and corporate dealings that led to the creation of the railway. However, the argument can be made that it is extremely important to ensure that all of the relevant dealings that took place in the lead up to the creation of the idea of a Pacific railway system that linked the Western half of Canada with the Eastern portions of the country. James.Gough.93 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Please note that this is only a partial evaulation of the article, a full evaluation is posted on my Sandbox page.[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
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.
