Talk:2008 Bathurst Boys in Red accident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good article nominee
Listed
December 24, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
August 21, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
September 6, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 7, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject iconTransport Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reliable sources

I have stated both CBC and CTV articles at the bottom of the page. Are they not reliable? --Kuzwa (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the formatting im not good with that kind of thing. :[ --Kuzwa (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) They are reliable, yes. Inline citations would be nice, they are pretty imperative on these breaking-news type stories. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a news service, and I am not sure about lasting notability of this incident. Maybe it deserves a mention on the article on the school, but I am not convinced about it having its own article. On the other hand, maybe this is a more serious incident than it appears- yes, it's tragic, and yes, I am sure it will make local and probably national (though I doubt international) news, but does it really warrant an encyclopedia entry? I think not. J Milburn (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will probably lead to changes in sports across the province. Generally basketball tournaments in this province are not cancelled due to weather related phenomenon. After this though that will probably change. But it remains to be seen. --Kuzwa (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have watchlisted the article. I will reassess it in a couple of days- I may take it to AfD or not, depending on how much attention the story seems to recieve. J Milburn (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing some research on the route. Route 11 is apparently one of the most dangerous routes in the province. There has been lots of argument in the New Brunswick legislature over the condition of roads in this province. This event may pressure the government into repairing these roads. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify?

The CTV article states that the female teacher that was killed was the driver. While the CBC article says she was the wife of the driver. Can anyone clarify? Was she not the specified driver but was driving these people? --Kuzwa (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The driver was the coach of the team - he survived. His wife was a passenger. -- DCouprie —Preceding comment was added at 19:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To-do's

  • More citations, proper referencing
  • Cleanup grammar check
  • Wikify
  • Expansion on the Reaction and Aftermath sections.

--Kuzwa (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boys in Red Tragedy request for feedback and response

Hi. I am a rather inexperienced editor here on Wikipedia and this is the first article I have done major expansion too. I was wondering if I could get some pointers/comments on a few things.

  1. Writing - This tends to be me weak point. I would much appreciate feedback on my writing style and the flurry of grammar and spelling mistakes in the article!
  2. Referencing - Am I referencing everything correctly, are some of my references not reliable?
  3. Images - Is the Image:2008 Bathurst Crash.PNG free to use? What is the status on images created by the Canadian government?
  4. Name - Is the name of the article appropriate or should it be changed back to 2008 Bathurst van collision?

Thanks in advance. --Kuzwa (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the difficulty of the subject matter, you've succeeded in several respects. The overall result is hardly one that will draw serious editorial criticism.
  • 1) Most of the writing comments would relate to small matters, such as using "October" in one place and "Oct." in another, a hyphen in one place, and an en-dash in another. I.e., things so trivial they might not be noticed.
  • 2) The references are complete enough in detail and in whole. The reputability of the sources is fine.
  • 3) I'm not an expert on TV image copyright, however I think your suspicion is correct, that photo is not available for free use. The justification doesn't seem strong, or correctly couched. This is worth mentioning, because your justifications for your own photos might excite some attention as well because, for example, they lack a description. It's worth knowing that there is a group in Wikipedia that feels many existing photos should be removed; for their sake, if nothing else, it's worth following the "letter of the law" as closely as possible. I don't know that my justification for this photo is perfect [1], but to this point, I've never had my photo uploads challenged.
  • 4) The article name is fine. If there is another common name people use to search for it, a redirect link can be created.
There are two other somewhat important issues with the article. Although this article neatly ties in accident data, social implications, and legislative responses, there are still places where it reads like a memorial piece, and this generally unsuitable for Wikipedia. (Consult with
WP:LINKSTOAVOID
.
The other comment is easy to fix, and you'll probably find it to your convenience if you do much Wiki editing, which is that it's better to make several changes to an article, then "save" once. [2] Otherwise it creates a complicated editing history that is difficult for later editors to work with. On Oct. 30, for example you made a couple dozen changes in about an hour. When I have changes that complicated, I use "Show preview" -- and also cut-and-paste a copy of my work-in-process to my computer, in case something goes wrong with the edit.
But all-in-all, it's a worthwhile article. Except for the last point, if you hadn't mentioned you were an inexperienced editor, I wouldn't have guessed it. Hope to see more of your work! Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is
Talk:Boys in Red Tragedy/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi there, I am happy to tell you that this article has passed GA without the need for any further improvement. Listed below is information on how the article fared against the Wikipedia:good article criteria, with suggestions for future development. These are not required to achieve GA standard, but they might help in future A-class or FAC review process.

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
Prose is not bad, although there are some short sentences. I have taken the liberty of tidying some of the prose, merging some of the stubbier paragrahs to aid the article's flow and I have also moved the wikinews box down to the see also section (I'm pretty sure that is where it should be and it looks better there too). I have made two non-essential suggested improvements below.
  • "when a logging truck lost control and tipped onto a hayride in Cap-Pele killing twelve,[3]" from the lead would be better slotted into the reaction section somewhere with the appropriate context as it is too detailed for the lead and is not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
  • "Eight of the van occupants were pronounced dead" - at the scene?
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have
    fair use rationales
    )    :
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Thankyou and congratulations, an excellent addition to Wikipedia:Good Articles. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the article title

Why does the name have "tragedy" in it? Is it the commonly accepted name for the incident, or is only the "Boys in Red" the common name? Why don't we have "Boys in Red incident" or "Boys in Red disaster"? I hesitate about the use of the word "tragedy" - We do not use that word to describe other negative incidents and with other malicious people. Why is the word used in this incident? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally opposed to switching the article name to Boys in Red accident or Boys in Red incident. I'd hesitate to use the term "disaster" though it's true that many news sources have called the crash such a thing. According to an historical survey [3] a disaster is defined as a "single event, occurring at one time (no more than the order of a few days), within Canadian (and Newfoundland, before 1949) territory out to the 200-mile economic zone offshore, in which loss of life was 20 or more persons." I therefore assumed that disaster in the title by a Canadian context would be a little extreme. Anyways discuss. --Kuzwa (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now been moved to Boys in Red accident. --Kuzwa (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Do we really need that picture of the destroyed vehicle there? It seems insensitive to me. --Quadraxis (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insensitve how so? The image is currently used as the main means of visual identification of the subject or in simpler terms the image which shows/represents the accident scene. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for copyedit

At the direct request of the main author I have skimmed the article and put a

copyedit tag on it. If no one else copyedits it within the next seven days I'll do it myself. It's already rated as a Good article so it shouldn't need much work. DQweny (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The article was copyedited by the original author with some input from me, and the copyedit tag removed. DQweny (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think that minor cleanup is really all that is stopping this article from FA. Thanks again! =) --Kuzwa (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Wholesalers and Loblaws lawsuit

This needs some context: the cause of action isn't explained in the relevant section, and neither plaintiff is mentioned anywhere else in the article, so the reader can't infer anything. Steve Smith (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, no one in this province understood why they were suing at all, it's almost as if they didn't have a reason. --Kuzwa (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

12 years later, this confused me as well, because nothing had been updated. It took one simple search to confirm that the companies in question owned the truck. So much for “they didn’t have a reason.” I added a few words to the section to clarify. PacificBoy 00:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 13:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 Bathurst Boys in Red accident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2008 Bathurst Boys in Red accident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Bathurst_Boys_in_Red_accident&oldid=1196513505"