Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hours of service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 promoted 02:16, 21 May 2008.

[edit] Hours of service

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've put a lot of hard work into this article, and I'd like to see it featured on the main page. This is a self-nomination, I've been almost the sole contributor to this article, and frankly I'd like to get some fresh perspectives on the article from other editors. Its been through GA and PR so I think its ready. ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Well-written and presented clearly, and the sources have been improved. Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I thought the article was well-written and presented clearly but I think the sources need to be improved. I understand that many of the statements need to be cited to the FMCSA, but I think other statements could probably be cited to newspaper or trade magazine articles.

    • Which statements do you think should not be cited to the FMCSA? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In the purpose section, I think I'd swap the first two paragraphs. It makes more sense to me to describe first who this affects, then why it was put into place, especially since the bulk of the remained of the section discusses fatigue.
  • I'm not sure why this is inserted into a sentence: "see also: circadian rhythm sleep disorder) " - the sentence is discussing a conventional sleep pattern, of which the sleep disorder is not. This should probably be incorporated into the paragraph with a brief (one-sentence?) description of what it is.
    • Well it describes what is not a conventional sleeping pattern. But you're probably right so I removed it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:MOSDASH, need to use ndashes for numeric ranges 7–8 instead of 7-8.
  • There should be citations at the end of every sentence which contains a quotation, even if that citation is used at the end of the next sentence. That way we always know where this quote came from, even if someone later inserts another reference. I saw this problem in the History section.
  • In the paragraph beginning "In 2005, the FMCSA changed the rules again", why is practically in italics?
    • For emphasis of course. Technically, they didn't eliminate splitting... but effectively eliminated it. Nobody uses it anymore, but it is still there. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I disagree that it's needed, but I guess it doesn't violate WP:ITALICS. Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the definitions section should go above the History section, as many of those terms are used the history section.
    • I was thinking the same thing. Done. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What makes mobileawareness.com a reliable source?
    • Changed and removed. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • is layover.com a Reliable source
    • I would think so. My problem was finding anything that stated what I needed to cite. There isn't one single page out there that says "police officers may check a truck driver's log book" (at least not that I could find) so I went with the first thing I found. Other than this website, I would probably need to cite this from a book. But this is a relevant fact that should be in this article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that it's a relevant fact. Have you tried searching google news? I searched for "hours of service" truck log book and got a lot of hits. Here are two that may be especially relevant. [1] [2] Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Those articles mention nothing about police officers checking log books. Perhaps I should remove the mention of log books and just state that "police and dot may stop truck drivers for inspections" using the articles you have provided. I will see what else I can find and wait for your reply. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Update: I have removed and replaced this source with this article from the New York Times. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would replace HowStuffWorks.com with another site
    • Again, same problem. No sources could be found that stated "weigh stations are run by states". Regardless, I think it's a reliable source. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • This NYT article is a start [3] and here's one from the St. Petersburg newspaper in FL [4]. Google news is a great resource for newspaper articles.Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Howstuffworks.com is a sub-site of the Discovery Channel but if you insist, I will change it to the NYT article upon a reply. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • About.com is not a reliable source.
  • I would not consider alk.com to be a reliable source.
    • This is used as a reference for the product they sell. Is there any question that this product is used for its intended purpose? --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The problem is that these are all primary or self-published sources. The article should rely on independent, third-party sources. Surely there is a newspaper article somewhere about it? Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I see no reason why alk.com and werner.com can't be used as primary sources. I make no interpretations and am simply stating what these companies are intending to do. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I would not consider The Linebaugh Law Firm to be a reliable source for this either.
  • Is http://www.coopsareopen.com/news/log-book-schmog-book.html a blog? Blogs are not considered reliable sources generally.
  • I would not consider http://www.werner.com/content/res/drv/paperless/faq/ to be a reliable source
    • Used as a reference for the company itself. I don't see how else I should source the statment that their rationale for EOBRs is "...to ensure drivers are in compliance with the federal regulations..." --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.