Talk:Ambulance/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This article is being reviewed as part of the WikiProject Good Articles. We're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. This article was awarded GA-status back in April 2007 and the GA requirements have been "tightened up", so I will be assessing the article to ensure that it is still compliant. Pyrotec (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

After an initial read through, this article appears to be fairly comprehensive in scope, but there are a number of sections and paragraphs that are devoide of in-line citations. I will now carry out a more indepth review section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead unitl last. Pyrotec (talk) 16:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate feedback on my suggestion about the lead, Nobody chimed in for or against the suggestion, so I've just let it lie for the moment. I'd be interested in what you have to say so we can bring this up to FA status. Frmatt (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I will be doing the Lead last of all. Pyrotec (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem...as you can see I'm not exactly in a rush to do it! Frmatt (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• At the moment I'm just concentrating on "problems":

• History -

• Ref 10 is a book: the relevant page or page numbers should be given in the in-line citation.

• Vehicle types -

• Ref 12 is a broken web link.
• Refs 15 and 16 are broken web links.
• Ref 20 is a broken web link.
• Ref 23 is a broken web link.
• Ref 25 is a broken web link.

• Design and construction -

• The third paragraph, i.e. "Ambulances often have two manufacturers. The first is frequently a manufacturer of light trucks

.....", is unreferenced.

All of these except Ref 10 have been fixed...will try to find some way to fix it... Will need to find a copy of the book in order to fix it, or find some other source. Frmatt (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That was quick. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Equipment -

• A ref for the migration to TETRA type systems, would be useful. - ADDED Frmatt (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Ref 43 is a broken web link. - FIXED Frmatt (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Appearance and markings -

• The Introductionary paragraphs, i.e. about not obeying certain traffic laws, aught to have a citation(s). - FIXED Frmatt (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• From my (UK) perspective, perhaps some further guidance is needed, e.g. is the journey urgent (or more appropriate term) and is that urgency sufficient to require traffic laws to be dis-obeyed? Make the wrong decision and in the case of an accident/near-miss there may be legal consequences to dis-obeying traffic laws. - ADDED Frmatt (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Passive visual warnings -

• RAL colours means EN standards (or national implementing standards such as BS EN, DIN EN, etc) are being invoked. (see for instance [[1]] )
• The fourth paragraph about Protective Symbols needs some citations, especially where claims of breaches of laws are being made.

• • Audible warnings -

• The second paragraph about ambulance drivers being trained to use different siren tones in different driving situations could do with a reference.
• Similarly the statements about RDS radios. - BOTH DONE Frmatt (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Costs -

• This section is mostly unreferenced. - NOW FULLY REFERENCED Frmatt (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Crewing -

• Ref 62 appears to be a broken web link.

• WP:Lead -

• This is quite a reasonable lead. It is required to provide both an introduction to the article and a summary of the main points. It achieves those two aims reasonably.
• Charges (free or not) and ambulance crews for instance are not mentioned in the lead, but possibly they could be. Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So...I think they're all fixed now...anyone want to take a look and see if I missed anything? Frmatt (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Some additional references would help; and a few web links need to be repaired.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Covers a wide range of relevant factors.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well-illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well-illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm marking this article as GA-status "Keep". Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)