Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crash test dummy/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Crash test dummy
Self-nomination (make me feel like a real dummy). Worked hard on this one, a cheap pick-up in the stubs bin and look where it went! I also got to read Mary Roach's absolutely delightful book. Comments/criticisms welcome.Denni 07:16, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
- Stiff was excellent. -Litefantastic 11:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
- Looks like a lot of work went into this. Support MGM 14:20, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
Object. I agree with Markalexander100 (his comment on the article's talk page) that the headings are a bit exuberant. Also, wikilinks are used in a strange way - for example, the adjective fundamental is linked (well, was, I removed that) whereas Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is not. These minor issues should be easy to address. The article looks fairly comprehensive otherwise, so kudos for your work. Fredrik 15:03, 3 May 2004 (UTC)- Headings de-exhubericated, additional internal/external links provided where relevant, and an additional copyedit to smooth/clarify carried out. Thank you for the useful comments. As of this point (3 weeks after request), I still have no response to copyright queries re. lead pic. I therefore reassert fair use (see image talk page for further information). Denni 22:11, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
- Two more comments. First: "In 1971, the first Hybrid I was introduced by ARL" - we are introduced to the Hybrid, and the next two sections discuss the Hybrid III family. It appears that the Hybrids have set the standard, but there is no particular explanation for this. The introduction of the Hybrids should state how important they are and why. Second, the conclusion of the article is a bit too exuberant (again) and assertive. I suggest changing the "will happen" wording into "will probably happen". With those changed, I will support this article. Fredrik 09:43, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
- Support now. Fredrik 22:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
- Headings de-exhubericated, additional internal/external links provided where relevant, and an additional copyedit to smooth/clarify carried out. Thank you for the useful comments. As of this point (3 weeks after request), I still have no response to copyright queries re. lead pic. I therefore reassert fair use (see image talk page for further information). Denni 22:11, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
Object, for the moment; the writing is awkward. Sentences tend to be long and cumbersome. This could be cleaed up with some careful copyediting - I did a little, but I tend to have the same problem. Otherwise, well-researched and interesting. --Andrew 15:06, May 5, 2004 (UTC)- While I have no objection to wording changes, I do choose each word and phrase I use with care. I believe it is necessary to communicate precisely what I mean. So one, for instance, I find one change in the "cadaver testing" section unacceptable, where the original compromise has been replaced with confuse. IMHO, the original is more accurate. Researchers were not "confused" by multiple injuries, but they were for very good reasons unable to separate the effects of prior injuries to those of current ones. I stand by my thesaurus.
- It's possible to be just as precise and use shorter sentences. But yours is a personal style; while it's different from mine, it's fine (now that the few really awkward constructions are fixed). Good article; I'm happy to Support. --Andrew 15:49, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Having said that, my "Nice Job, Editor" award goes to those people who work on my articles, and I can't tell it's been done, or marvel at my turns of phrse which, when I check them out, are actually someone else's. So, Andrew, I say "Nice Job, Editor." Denni 15:28, 2004 May 5 (UTC)
- I found the writing pleasant to read. Fredrik 15:16, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
- While I have no objection to wording changes, I do choose each word and phrase I use with care. I believe it is necessary to communicate precisely what I mean. So one, for instance, I find one change in the "cadaver testing" section unacceptable, where the original compromise has been replaced with confuse. IMHO, the original is more accurate. Researchers were not "confused" by multiple injuries, but they were for very good reasons unable to separate the effects of prior injuries to those of current ones. I stand by my thesaurus.
