Talk:Hours of service/GA1

GA Review

I will review this article as I have time. Please be patient. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This GA nomination is currently on hold. —Rob (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   See below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   See below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   "Definition of terms" section can probably be better addressed in prose. So can "Property-carrying vehicles". Either decide whether to present the full list or the simplified version, but not both. Same thing with "Passenger-carrying vehicles". And "Exceptions".

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   "yet again" is not NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Interesting read, and I look forward to helping out with any revisions of the article!

GA Concerns

Requirement 1

• First quote in the History section needs a source.
• Are "split" and "stop the clock" taken from the source or used as idioms?
• Also, the History section is very heavy on details without flow on why any changes were made. I'm assuming it was in response to complaints and lobbyists, but that sort of information would be helpful as a narrative here.
• Is the split sleeper berth provision the same as the two-4-hour periods of rest provision?
• That last paragraph is wholly confusing.
• External links should be gathered in a separate "External links" section
• Avoid ellipses in articles, especially after a list

Req. 2

• "Frequent slow-downs such as breakdowns, traffic jams, and long hours spent loading and unloading (all of which count against driving time), provide incentive for breaking the rules." -- original research unless you can provide a link.
• Same thing with first 2-3 sentences of final paragraph of Enforcement section

Req. 6

• The image of circadian rhythm is not necessary to the understanding of the article.
• The scan of a log book claims to be in public domain, but it looks like the log book itself is copyrighted. If it's a government-provided document, you will have to change the license on the image.
• Strange placement on the images. The graph probably belongs in a place where the meaning of the graph can be more properly addressed. I would've placed the log book at the top.

Concerns as of 21 March

It's very close. My last question is whether it is necessary to have the "summarized" sections, now that the 2 preceding paragraphs have been essentially summarized themselves. —Rob (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking whether the headings are necessary or just the information? I can remove the headings if it makes sense to do so, but the information conveyed within the summarized sections is necessary to overall understanding. I can incorporate the information into the other paragraphs if that makes reading easier. I just figured... with the complicated wording necessary to explain the regulations, there should be a simplified version that spells out the same information in a less formal tone, and also explains the concepts of the weekly hours limit that are not literally spelled out within the regulations but are necessary for understanding the implications of the rules (such as 70/8=8.75 hours per day). --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The information. I'm thinking in the sense that an encyclopedia is already a summary of a set of information, so a summary of the summary isn't really necessary. (I do understand that the summary is more to paint the consequences of the rules, though.) Let me see if I can do something in the first summarized section. —Rob (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there was some repetition there, too. Let me know what you think of my latest edit. —Rob (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, I changed the other one too. There is still some repetition there between the property-carrying and passenger-carrying sections. I was thinking of something like "passenger carrying vehicles have the same weekly hours restrictions as property carrying vehicles." Perhaps? But I think its fine just like it is. While you're at it, do you think you can add an assesment to this article too? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, I made those small changes. That's pretty much all of the suggestions I think I can give this article, but feel free to keep updating it. Thanks for your patience! —Rob (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I appreciate you working with me to get this article up to par, which is more than I can say for some reviewers. I don't know what else can be added to this article, seems pretty complete to me. I think I'll leave the rest up to the masses. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Response

First of all, I'd like to say this can be a very confusing subject to handle. I've been dealing with it for over two years now, and I understand the rules, but trying to explain them to someone else is like... well... a tax accountant trying to explain every tax law to you. It's very difficult to put these rules into simplified words.

That being said, "split" and "stop the clock" are taken from government guides and official sites, however, these terms are not used in the official regulations. When a driver comes on duty, he starts a 14 hour clock within which he can complete his 11 hours of driving. (Under the old laws) A driver could stop the clock by splitting his 8 hour break into two parts (one part must be more than 2 hours). For example, a driver could drive 6 hours sleep 4 hours drive another 5 hours and then sleep 4 hours. Normally, the 14 hour clock would prevent him from driving again after the 14th hour (during the last hour of his second 5 hour shift). Hence the idioms "split" and "stop the clock." Instead of taking the full 8 hours of sleep, you're splitting the sleep into two parts.

I guess it takes someone who isn't well versed in the rules to point out the confusing parts, because I have a hard time writing it any clearer than how I know it. And the legal definitions especially aren't of any help, because they are even more confusing to the average person.

Log books are not copyrighted, they are issued by the department of transportation. Company names and address are printed onto them for convenience. I will change the license.

As for Req 2, I assumed those statements to be common sense. Any action that takes away from driving time would reduce your paycheck, and provide incentive for breaking the rules. Paper-based log books are just that... paper. There is nobody but you (the driver) who says how long or where you drove during the day. Hence the debate over EOBRs. I will find sources for these statements.

And its funny you mention the image placement, because another editor advised me to change the placement of the images from the manner in which you suggested to place them. The graph illustrates the reasons why we have a HOS rule, and shows the relationship between driving hours and accidents. As you can see there is a strong peak at 11 hours, which is the current driving limit. The photo of the log book is placed in the log book section. As far as the Circadian rhythm photo, I think it's important to illustrate how the human body operates on a natural 24 hour cycle, while mentioning how some of the HOS laws interfere with that cycle by completely disregarding the 24 hour day and replacing it with 18 or 21 hour days.

I will try to improve this article as much as possible before the 7 day limit. Thank you for your criticism! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem - the 7 day limit is somewhat arbitrary, and if you're working on the article the GA nomination doesn't have to be closed. But there are a few big questions out there.

If the legal definitions are of no help to average people, it's best to remove them entirely. Wikipedia is meant to be read by average people (on the balance, anyways) so I wouldn't object to leaving the summary in and removing the lists of conditions.

While the opportunity for fraud may be common sense, the sentences around that particular section assert that fraud is already taking place without giving specifics (how often? who? (in the general sense, not necessarily specific companies)). I know a few Dateline specials have been dedicated to this topic, so finding a citation shouldn't be impossible.

About the circadian rhythm thing... you can emphasize the importance of circadian rhythm in text. The concept is relevant, but the image doesn't strike me as relevant. (See WP:Image). Thanks! —Rob (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, by "legal definitions" I meant "regulations". I thought about it some more last night and figured maybe it would be best for those to go. But I also thought that it would be good to summarize all the changes in regulation in a table, if possible. It seems to be the most appropriate way to present the information. —Rob (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Revisions

Ok, I think I've made every relevant revision I can make right now. I added a little more information, and I've added citations for everything. If an entire paragraph is covered by a cite, I just put it at the end... otherwise everything between cites is covered by the ending cite.

And I have to say, information about this subject is endless! Everybody has something to say about the HOS. OOIDA, ATA, PATT, CRASH, FMCSA, IIHS, DOT... I'm having acronym overload. The exception to this overabundance of information would be the history of the HOS. I had to search high and low just to find a few tidbits of information about the history of changes made to the HOS... but I found it.

I addressed the graph in a little more detail, if you still think I should move it I could add the photo of a blank log book at the top and perhaps give more information about research into driver fatigue... however that is also a lot more work. I plan on adding more about that when I have time. But right now I still think the graph is ok at the top.

Let me know if anything is still confusing. I de-listed and removed the legal-speak from most of the article, however, I still think only the legal definiton of "on duty" gives justice to the term... considering the wide range of situations it is supposed to cover. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)