Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boys in Red accident/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:28, 7 November 2009 [1].

Boys in Red accident[edit]

Nominator(s): Kuzwa (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright time for round two! After nearly a year or work and one failed FAC last month I now feel this article is ready! Main thing stopping this article last time was prose and punctuation mostly; so I have copyedited the article extensively with some input and assistance from User:DQweny (Thank you very much!). This is one of the best articles on Wikipedia and I think it's ready to join the other FA's. =) Kuzwa (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose - Problems with pictures Changed to full oppose below.

The picture in the lead is important, but its being used under fair use and the rationale doesn't make sense to me, "There is no free equivalent of the van, so the image cannot be replaced." Isn't this from a government report? It should be easy to ask for permission, so that doesn't seem like a valid reason to me.

Temporarily removed it from the article. I am going to make a request to Government of Canada. If it's refused for whatever reason then I guess that's fine. If people want to see images of the accident they can click on the report at the bottom of the article. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* The picture in the 'Aftermath' section says 'Ford E350 van similar to the one involved in the accident', except that its a cargo van instead of a 15 passenger van, so its not actually similar. There's probably a picture on Flickr you could upload, or you could take a picture.

Got a passenger version of the van. (I think) Though it is of a different color. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) A[reply]

Comment: I would have liked to see the picture of the semi that hit the van, I'm surprised this didn't come up in your GA review.

Sorry for being picky, thanks for your hard work. Kirk (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one but I am currently making a request to GovCan over it. Watch this space. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Reference 22 is dead. It just leads to an "under construction" website with no information.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 15:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with thanks. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. To my mind this article meets all the FA criteria. DQweny (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criteria 3

Note: I'm not sure I really support striking through my objections above - deleting the picture really makes this a worse FAC.

One issue you face is the lack of any other FA-class articles about any auto accidents. Based on some of the aviation accident FA-class articles:

There aren't enough pictures, graphics, etc. to support the prose. A good rule of thumb is one graphic per 250 words, so you are short about 5. For example, how about a map? Also, each image needs to be discussed in the text. See American Airlines Flight 11

The infobox could have a lot more information, but there's no real template for you to use. See Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907

If this was my article, I'd contact the WP:AIRCRASH task force for a peer review, as well as leting them know I wanted to create a new task force for auto accidents (maybe they can help set it up), add a map, getting permission to those images in the report, and working them into the prose. I'm sure more experienced editors can give more tips as well. Good luck and thanks for your contributions! Kirk (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

I didn't strike through anything I didn't feel was properly dealt with.
I haven't used aviation accident articles as the template for this article. In fact, I actually think that in some ways the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings article is of a closer model to a car accident because it revolves around an event that occurred on the ground, and wasn't investigated by a specialized air task force.
That's the recommended format, I would love to have enough images to do that, but I don't. Other FA's are like this as well... see Saint-Sylvestre coup d'état.
I agree. I think I have seen a template dedicated to bus accidents that I possibly could manipulate in some way.
An auto accident task force would be a good idea. Also, I don't think there is any map that can be added to this article unless I just want to show the position of Bathurst within New Brunswick, even the accident report does not have a map. As for the images in the report, if I can't get permission to use them then whatever, that shouldn't derail this nomination. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~ Oppose I guess as a transplanted New Brunswicker, I should take a look at this one. It's not in bad shape, but I think it's still some distance from being a featured article. Some specific comments:

I've done a copyedit, but I don't think the prose is there even after that. I think I've reduced the bloat enough, but it's still stilted at some points. I'd encourage the solicitation of another copyedit, and I'll try to get back to this myself once I have some more distance from it.
In "Accident" we're told that the vehicles came to rest on the shoulder of the southbound lane, but we're not told which way each vehicle was driving, which would be relevant information for understanding the relevant kinetics.

Guess that was removed during the copy editing. I have now clarified the van was travelling northward. --Kuzwa (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The first paragraph of "Reaction" just reads as a list of quotes, with no apparent attempt to build thematic unity.~~

Tried to tie together the section with an opening topic sentence. Might change the formatting of this section a bit. Watch this space.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the extensive use of primary sources in the "Investigation" section. Have these details not been covered by secondary sources?
~~On what basis do rural schools claim to have been impacted more than urban ones by the new rules?~~

Removed, this claim was based on a source that has since become a deadlink, this now reads as POV.

Who would the families of the deceased be bringing charges against?

None of the references I've looked at mention anyone specific. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. As I said, I'll try to be back later to give it another going over. Steve Smith (talk) 22:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the primary source issue, the second paragraph of "Recommendations" is supported in its entirety by a single primary source. The paragraph draws conclusions that are not supported by that source (i.e. "One major effect..."). Steve Smith (talk) 22:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ref was wrong instead of reffing policy 512 it should have reffed 513 which it is now doing. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that the primary source doesn't support that it was a major change, doesn't support that it resulted from the accident, doesn't support that it was a completely new policy (rather than a replacement for an old policy that may have included some of the same elements), etc. This is the danger of primary sources, and why Wikipedia articles are supposed to rely on secondary sources. Steve Smith (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I guess I should clarify here. Until the accident policy 512 and policy 513 we're not enforced and schools were only requested to follow them. After the accident the policies became fully enforceable and all school must adhere to them. So actually the insurance requirements are quite old but you didn't need to have them until after the crash. I'll get looking for a ref! --Kuzwa (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Both images have adequate descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per 1a. A few examples listed below, but please don't fix these few and come back and ask me to reconsider. The article needs two or three major revisions from experienced editors before it could pass 1a:

The provincial government agreed with the majority of the suggestions and has since enacted many of them.. Weasel words.
suspected that only the semi had gone off the road. So the van was on the road? Or the shoulder? Oh, it wasn't visible. Ambiguous.
one cannot drive if they have been working. garbled grammar. Rewrite.
Many at Bathurst High School speculated. Weasel words, unverified.

Ling.Nut (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.