Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Car dooring"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>LlywelynII (on it) |
imported>LlywelynII (review) |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
--> | --> | ||
− | :* | + | :* Hook is cited to {{sc|rs}}; QPQ seems a little perfunctory but [http://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Saka+Tunggal+Mosque&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1 Earwig confirms no issues]; new and long enough; no image to check... but: |
+ | :*<u>Major omission</u>: | ||
+ | :** The ''Guardian'' article linked directly to the report on James Cross's 2010 death that started the Australian campaign. It was a dead link by now but [https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/media/vanilla_content/files/BNV%20Submission.pdf it was googl'ble] and should be included, albeit with the awareness that it's a biased source. | ||
+ | :*<u>Minor {{sc|pov}} issues</u>: | ||
+ | :** The current treatment is entirely limited to Victoria (Australia) and the UK. It'd be better to see at least one official or {{sc|rs}} for the subject's American name and treatment. | ||
+ | :** The Australian source treats "'''car dooring'''" as a neologism to be quoted in every usage; the UK source treats ''car'' as a clarification of the neologism "'''dooring'''"; neither treats it as an accepted phrase, Google ngram shows no usage, and [https://scholar.google.co.jp/scholar?hl=en&q=%22car+dooring%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= Scholar] provides only sources discussing the Australian law (all of which again put sneer quotes around "dooring" or "car dooring"). The "car dooring" seems to be Australian; "dooring" seems to be Australian and British; both should be included and labeled, pending new sourcing. | ||
+ | :** Looking at what I've been able to find, this doesn't seem to be a term for the general problem but only an Australian term related to a recent awareness campaign and law. Again, you probably want to find out what the Americans are calling this or it probably will need to be shunted to another article ''just'' focused on the Australian issues. | ||
+ | :** Both the official British and Australian sources refer to [whatever] as the act of causing a hazard ... end of. The current campaign is mostly aimed at cyclist but the term and laws also protect pedestrians. The article should either include them in its discussion or again be shunted to a discussion of the Australian law. | ||
+ | :*<u>Major {{sc|pov}} issues</u>: | ||
+ | :** A politician in the midst of advocating her legislation is an almost <u>definitionally</u> unreliable source and should not be used to source statements even on the color of the sky or most probable locations of ursine evacuation procedures. | ||
+ | :** More seriously, the quote in question (p. 3, although it wasn't cited by page in the article) is being misrepresented. It does ''not'' say future inclusion is "likely" but that it "may" occur. (No major effect on this article, since the quote should simply be removed in its entirety... but kindly don't "adjust" your quotes like that.) | ||
+ | :** Most seriously, the article is ''strongly'' out of balance in placing its condemnation and admonitions entirely on automotive passengers. The point is nonsensical enough on its own: the bicycle is the speeding and dangerous vehicle in this case, which is obliged to remain out of the reach of the parked cars' doors. The bias is all the more pointed when the article uses sources entitled "Cyclists must steer clear of the threat of parked cars" and yet manages to avoid inclusion of any mention of cyclists' obligations to remain alert and out of danger. Automotive passengers have their obligations as well, but the current treatment is a no-go.<br> — [[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> |
Revision as of 16:17, 29 March 2015
DYK toolbox |
---|
Car dooring
- ... that three people were killed by car dooring in London between 2010 and 2012?
- Reviewed: Saka Tunggal Mosque
Created by Freikorp (talk). Self nominated at 12:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC).
- Hook is cited to Template:Sc; QPQ seems a little perfunctory but Earwig confirms no issues; new and long enough; no image to check... but:
- Major omission:
- The Guardian article linked directly to the report on James Cross's 2010 death that started the Australian campaign. It was a dead link by now but it was googl'ble and should be included, albeit with the awareness that it's a biased source.
- Minor Template:Sc issues:
- The current treatment is entirely limited to Victoria (Australia) and the UK. It'd be better to see at least one official or Template:Sc for the subject's American name and treatment.
- The Australian source treats "car dooring" as a neologism to be quoted in every usage; the UK source treats car as a clarification of the neologism "dooring"; neither treats it as an accepted phrase, Google ngram shows no usage, and Scholar provides only sources discussing the Australian law (all of which again put sneer quotes around "dooring" or "car dooring"). The "car dooring" seems to be Australian; "dooring" seems to be Australian and British; both should be included and labeled, pending new sourcing.
- Looking at what I've been able to find, this doesn't seem to be a term for the general problem but only an Australian term related to a recent awareness campaign and law. Again, you probably want to find out what the Americans are calling this or it probably will need to be shunted to another article just focused on the Australian issues.
- Both the official British and Australian sources refer to [whatever] as the act of causing a hazard ... end of. The current campaign is mostly aimed at cyclist but the term and laws also protect pedestrians. The article should either include them in its discussion or again be shunted to a discussion of the Australian law.
- Major Template:Sc issues:
- A politician in the midst of advocating her legislation is an almost definitionally unreliable source and should not be used to source statements even on the color of the sky or most probable locations of ursine evacuation procedures.
- More seriously, the quote in question (p. 3, although it wasn't cited by page in the article) is being misrepresented. It does not say future inclusion is "likely" but that it "may" occur. (No major effect on this article, since the quote should simply be removed in its entirety... but kindly don't "adjust" your quotes like that.)
- Most seriously, the article is strongly out of balance in placing its condemnation and admonitions entirely on automotive passengers. The point is nonsensical enough on its own: the bicycle is the speeding and dangerous vehicle in this case, which is obliged to remain out of the reach of the parked cars' doors. The bias is all the more pointed when the article uses sources entitled "Cyclists must steer clear of the threat of parked cars" and yet manages to avoid inclusion of any mention of cyclists' obligations to remain alert and out of danger. Automotive passengers have their obligations as well, but the current treatment is a no-go.
— LlywelynII 16:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)