Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Electric vehicle warning sounds/1

Electric vehicle warning sounds[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Result: keep GAR nomination withdrawn by nominator. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the article completely fails the test of Reliable Sources. As I pointed out in [Talk:Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds#Astonishing lack of peer-reviewed evidence]

Amongst the 65 references currently given in this article there is not a single peer-reviewed reference - instead it relies on newspaper reports, blogs, and press releases that seem to be feeding on each other.

I completely disagree with Miss Madeline's inference in [Talk:Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds#GA Review] that

That discussion indicates that there is a consensus for Autoblog et al as RS, so long as they are used carefully.

On the contrary, that discussion says that most blogs should not be used, but there are some which might be OK if they are double-checked.

I suspect that rigorous research would result in conclusions which are the opposite of the article's 'commonsense' conclusions, and thus we should refrain from reporting bloggers' 'commonsense' conclusions. I think it is important to get this right, as lives could be saved or lost depending on what policy is implemented, and this article could interfere with the introduction of less-polluting vehicles.

I am doing this as a community reassessment because I am a new to doing GAs and MM is an experienced editor.

BenevolentUncle (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry everybody - my closer inspection reveals that there are actually enough sources involving careful research for this article to be reasonably reliable. There are some important clarifications that I will make in the article, but I withdraw my call for delisting it as GA. Sorry again. BenevolentUncle (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you reconsideration, I was really taken aback by your proposal. I will appreciate if you remove the tags you put in the article.--Mariordo (talk)

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.