Talk:Hours of service

Hours of service is currently a good article nominee. Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 09:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please use the |page= parameter to specify the number of the next free GAN review page, or use {{subst:GAN}} instead to find the next free page automatically.

This article is not categorized by subtopic. Please edit the |subtopic= parameter on this talk page to include one. For a list of subtopics, please see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I made some minor cleanup changes, and I have a few other suggestions.

I would recommend moving the History section to the top of the page, as it provides a simple explanation of why these rules are important and how they've evolved over time.
The log book page is important to the article, but should only be used once rather than twice. I would argue that it makes more sense within the article than if it's used as a header photo, but I leave that to you to decide.
The Enforcement section needs sources. Not much else to say on that - it's well-written, and I don't doubt that the info is accurate (as I suspect it reflects your own experience), but it needs sources to back it up.

Good luck in the GA process - you're braver than I... Duncan1800 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

I will review this article as I have time. Please be patient. Thanks! —Rob (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
See below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
See below.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
"Definition of terms" section can probably be better addressed in prose. So can "Property-carrying vehicles". Either decide whether to present the full list or the simplified version, but not both. Same thing with "Passenger-carrying vehicles". And "Exceptions".
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
"yet again" is not NPOV.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
See below.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Interesting read, and I look forward to helping out with any revisions of the article!

GA Concerns

Requirement 1

First quote in the History section needs a source.
Are "split" and "stop the clock" taken from the source or used as idioms?
Also, the History section is very heavy on details without flow on why any changes were made. I'm assuming it was in response to complaints and lobbyists, but that sort of information would be helpful as a narrative here.
Is the split sleeper berth provision the same as the two-4-hour periods of rest provision?
That last paragraph is wholly confusing.
External links should be gathered in a separate "External links" section
Avoid ellipses in articles, especially after a list

Req. 2

"Frequent slow-downs such as breakdowns, traffic jams, and long hours spent loading and unloading (all of which count against driving time), provide incentive for breaking the rules." -- original research unless you can provide a link.
Same thing with first 2-3 sentences of final paragraph of Enforcement section

Req. 6

The image of circadian rhythm is not necessary to the understanding of the article.
The scan of a log book claims to be in public domain, but it looks like the log book itself is copyrighted. If it's a government-provided document, you will have to change the license on the image.
Strange placement on the images. The graph probably belongs in a place where the meaning of the graph can be more properly addressed. I would've placed the log book at the top.