Wikipedia:Peer review/Hours of service/archive1

Hours of service

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think I've done as much as I can for it. It has already passed GA review, just wanted a fresh opinion on the article before it gets slaughtered at FA review.

Thanks, ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:GeeJo

Ok then, let's begin:

Lead: "Enforcement of the HOS are generally handled" - subject of the sentence is Enforcement, so are=>is.
Purpose: "The purpose of the HOS are" - ditto.
Purpose: "10,001 pounds (4,536 kg) pounds" - drop the extra pounds
Purpose: number-units need non-breaking spaces
Purpose: "The FMCSA identifies three main factors in driver fatigue. Circadian rhythm effects,..." - change the full stop to a colon.
Purpose: Large chunks of this section are copy-pasted from the linked sources. While edicts by the DOT are public domain, I'd still be more comfortable if the information was paraphrased, lest we be accused of plagiarism in our Featured Articles.
History: more missing non-breaking spaces
History: "15 hour period", "4 hour periods of rest" and "8 hour off-duty time" need hyphens. I'd check again to make sure none are missed.
History: inconsistent hyphenation of off-duty/off duty
History: "...enable them to say definitely how long a driver can safely work." - I'd replace definitely.
History: No need for a space between the two refs following "...the majority of drivers taking the full 10-hour break."
Definition of terms: No need for spaces between punctuation and references.
Passenger-carrying vehicles: More missing "N-hour" hyphens.
Log book: Ditto.
Enforcement: "also under-report their driving time or total miles." - I understand under-reporting time, but if they're being paid by the mile, and the HOS cover only time on the road and not distance, why would they under-report their total miles?

Overall, an interesting and in-depth read. The only major qualm I have about the article is the copy-pasting from the DOT website in the Purpose section. While it's certainly legal, and for the average article perhaps even useful, I'd be very wary of promoting an article to Featured status when it contained such large blocks of text authored by an outside source, especially without making it clear that the blocks are direct quotations. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from User:ErgoSum88

Its amazing how easy it is to overlook tiny mistakes that are obvious to everyone else. Anyway, I see only two major points to address:

Purpose: Yes, I mostly copied an pasted the entire section. Call me lazy, cuz I am! But after a few minutes of staring at it, I really didn't know how to reword it any better than how they said it. And I did include the disclaimer at the bottom "This article incorporates text from..." and I thought that would be good enough. But if you say it wont make FA like that, I shall remove it. Now that I have time I will go back over this part and see what I can do.
Enforcement: You bring up a seemingly valid point. However, I guess I should have made it clear that drivers do not get paid by the miles that they report in their log books. Companies pay their drivers based on mileage that is calculated by mapping software or post office guides that list the mileage between city post offices (er, I heard that somewhere, but the software part I know is true). So under-reporting mileage and hours go hand-in-hand, because you can't drive 500 miles in two hours. Companies usually know when someone is under-reporting miles, however, the majority will choose to ignore the discrepancy because the onus will most likely fall upon the driver if the DOT ever discovers this. I will see how I can make this clearer to the average reader, with appropriate refs of course.
History: "Definitely" is a direct quote taken from the source. I will make that clearer.

Thanks for your input. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have addressed these issues. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

What makes the following reliable sources?

Probably, some of these are reliable, I just don't know the field, so better to question than take on blind faith.

I didn't check for prose, just for WP:RS and WP:V which I would have done at FAC. 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply from ErgoSum88 (talk · contribs)

bouletfreightmanagement.com - I have cited this for the "this rule is very confusing, resulting in the majority of drivers taking the full 10-hour break." This one is a company website, which obviously isn't represenative of all drivers. However, I used it because you can never have enough refs, and it was also backed up by a more reliable website which is the next one in question.
ttnews.com - This is a news-oriented website which is run by the American Trucking Associations. The ATA is the ACLU of the truck industry. The statement in question was taken from a letter to the editor from one of the major trucking companies, and having worked for a few myself, I know most of them are telling their drivers not to attempt to split because it is not worth the trouble. I probably could've found even more sources for this statement, but I went with the first two decent cites I could find.
mobileawareness.com - This website is run by a well-respected company within the transportation industry.
layover.com - I really wanted a better reference for this one, but it is so hard to find a website that spells out, point blank, what I needed to cite. I think the problem is, everybody knows trucks are checked at weigh stations so nobody bothers to document this little obvious fact. By all appearances, this website seems to have editorial control so I considered it a reliable source.
injuryboard.com - Pretty much what I just said for the one above.
alk.com - This was simply a ref for a popular routing application. They are also well-known within the industry, and no controversial statements were made. I simply cited it as an example of one of the many possible applications companies use, this one just happened to be the most popular.
linebaughlaw.com - Again, I hated to use attorney websites, but they seem to have a vested interest in trucking safety. They represent another side of the issue, as opposed to just citing pro-trucking websites every time. A lot of information regarding the HOS violators can only be found on legal-oriented websites.
allexperts.com - This ref probably isn't necessary anymore. I had originally used it to reference a statement to drivers referring to their log books as "comic books." During GA review, my reviewer thought this detracted from the article and removed it. The thing is, I know someone else will come along and want to add this statement eventually, because its a well-known nickname in the trucking industry. But I have left it be for now. This is a user-generated content website, but it is supported by other, more reliable sources which also used. I just like to over-cite statements, especialy when they might be challenged.
coopsareopen.com - This one is probaby the hardest to justify. No editoral control, obviously a blog-like open letter from the administrator of a website. But let it be said this is a very popular website for truck drivers looking for information about weigh stations.

Thanks for stopping by! I appreciate this. I have been looking at FA reviews so I kinda know what is coming. But this is good practice and perhaps will motivate me to work harder whenever trying to find sources. This is/was my first GA so I'm still learning some things. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]