Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Car dooring"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>LlywelynII (review) |
imported>LlywelynII (correction) |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
--> | --> | ||
+ | :* [[File:Symbol delete vote.svg|16px]] Discussion of the article on its own merits commented out below (several {{sc|pov}} issues) but I've since discovered it's simply a {{sc|[[wp:povfork]]}}—viz., the Australian English variant—of the "legal issues" section of the article at [[Door zone]]. "[[Dooring]]" (which is the correct {{sc|common}} {{sc|english}} name for the new article) already redirects to the existing one. The current article could be reworked into a ''different'' new article specific to the Australian law but should probably just have its content merged with [[Door zone]]. — [[User talk:LlywelynII|<span style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Llywelyn<font color="Gold">II</font></span>]] 16:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <!-- Initial review | ||
:* 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: | :* 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>: | :*<u>Major omission</u>: | ||
Line 31: | Line 35: | ||
:** 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. | :** 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.) | :** 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) | + | :** 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 16:27, 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).
Discussion of the article on its own merits commented out below (several Template:Sc issues) but I've since discovered it's simply a Template:Sc—viz., the Australian English variant—of the "legal issues" section of the article at Door zone. "Dooring" (which is the correct Template:Sc Template:Sc name for the new article) already redirects to the existing one. The current article could be reworked into a different new article specific to the Australian law but should probably just have its content merged with Door zone. — LlywelynII 16:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)