Wikipedia:Peer review/Boys in Red accident/archive2

Boys in Red accident[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Well pretty much all the developments I was anticipating coming up on this subject have occurred and this article is now complete from a content perspective and compared to many other articles on "smaller accidents" on Wikipedia based off small disasters with few fatalities that generally don't make major headlines in international news I'm am extremely happy with how this one has developed. I find it is very informative and covers in detail the accident, reaction and has a detailed explanation on the aftermath and the changes to law and policy regarding student transportation with the province of New Brunswick resulting from the accident. The next step for this article is a FAC so to get ready for that I'm looking for a rather thorough review to cover a few areas of the article I am rather unsure of or may have done to an un-professional/encyclopedic standard even after it's first Peer Review about 6-7 months ago. So anyways, feedback would be appreciated on:

-Clarity: Is the information on this article easy to understand? Are their sections that are redundant or repeat a certain point to frequently? Feedback much appreciated here.

-Layout: Could I reorganize the information in this article in a better manner?

-English: Is the writing style good? Is it boring? Are there many mistakes in the article.

-References: Don't think these are an issue but as always they need to be looked at.

Feel free to point out other issues you find. I would much rather have a rough Peer Review than a rough FAC. Also any tips to a newcomer to FAC would be much appreciated! Thanks, Kuzwa (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, interesting to read.
~~Needs alt text in the images. See WP:ALT.~~

Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Accident", first paragraph: three repetitions of the word "van" in the first three sentences. Consider rephrasing.~~

Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Accident", second paragraph, adjective used where an adverb would be correct. ("Emergency services responded more slowly than usual", or maybe "emergency services responded less quickly than usual".) Consider rephrasing.

Changed. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my (British English) perspective, the article seems confused about what language it's in. There's "centre" instead of "center", which indicates Commonwealth English, but "tire" instead of "tyre" which suggests American. There's also "licence" early in the article, but "license" as a noun later on. Maybe these are features of Canadian, though, so there's not necessarily an error there.

Will look into this, not 100% sure on how license/center are spelled as I do tend to spend a lot of time on both American and British forums rather than Canadian ones. Tire however is correct in Canadian English usage. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

province intended to implement a "vast majority" of these recommendations at the satisfaction of many of the families—is "at" the correct preposition for that?

Re-phrased. Thanks for your help by the way. I will look into other issues over the next few days. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, I didn't feel the article would benefit from reorganisation, but I felt there was a slight tendency to overuse the passive voice. Maybe try varying the sentence length a bit more as well.

Hope this helps.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article is in much better shape than the last time I read it. Even so, it is not yet up to FA standards. The toughest requirement for FA for many editors is that the prose should be of professional quality or close to it. All of the small errors in punctuation, spelling, and grammar should be cleaned up, and the article should follow Manual of Style guidelines unless there is a good reason not to. In addition, the prose should flow and should be concise. The article would no doubt benefit from the advice of a copyeditor; you might be able to find one in the copyeditor sublist at WP:PRV. Here are a couple of other suggestions:

WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line... I would say that a term such as "School District 15" falls into this category. Just to be safe, I'd also recommend adding non-breaking spaces to things like 6,000 mourners to keep such things together.

~~Dates such as 1984 should not be linked.~~

Addressed. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's generally better to turn bulleted lists into prose if they read well as prose.~~

Dealt with. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:ALLCAPS says in part, "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case: Replace "WAR BEGINS TODAY" with "War Begins Today"." I see some of these in the "Reference" section.~~

Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Newspaper names such as The New York Times need to be italicized.~~

I think you were referring to The Globe and Mail name in the article. If so that's fixed. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The url in citation 5 is dead. You might be able to find the story at another url or via the Internet Archive or some other archive.~~

Removed. Thank you for your suggestions. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dtbohrer

~~Where does the nickname "Boys in Red" come from?~~

The title of this article seems to be constantly drawing scrutiny so I will explain it. The Bathurst Phantoms basketball team colors are red and black. Numerous media organizations have referred to the accident as either the Boys in Red accident or Boys in Red tragedy or stuff of the like, from my personal experience living within the province many people may also make reference to the accident simply by saying the Boys in Red. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is their any way that this could be worked into the article? I feel that it would beneficial. --D.B.^{talk•contribs} 17:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The first instance of Route 8 should probably be clarified as New Brunswick Route 8.~~

Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"(The Pope) expresses sentiments of deep sympathy..." : "The Pope" should be surrounded by square brackets "[ ]", instead of parentheses, if it was not part of the original quote.~~

Done. --Kuzwa (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there any way of finding out what kind of truck the van hit (like semi, box truck, etc.)?~~

Clarified that it was a semi-trailer. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The url in citation 2 redirects to the Calgary Sun homepage.~~

Broken, redundant... removed. Thanks for your help. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just some minor details that weren't mentioned above. Interesting article, though... --D.B.^{talk•contribs} 00:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]