User talk:Asolo8/sandbox

Comments on the Outline from Rosie

In the History section explain why AirCare was started. What were the issues and concerns then? Then later in the article you can consider how these worked out.

You should probably have posted a note on the AirCare Talk page describing your plans for the page, or made other efforts to contact interested parties.

Can you find a copyright-free image of the AirCare logo?

Rosieredfield (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruth This is good. Well done! Your sources include one peer reviewed article, maybe you could find some more to include. Newspapers are OK for citations, but peer reviewed articles are better. Do any of the newspaper articles mention a study? Can you find the original study and cite that directly? RuthVancouver (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from Taylor

- Is the history the lead? Maybe be more clear with what your lead is to your article. Also, did you create this article or did you add to a previous one?

- There are some grammatical errors. Nothing major though just make sure you read through it again.

- I know at the bottom you put “Related Pages” but I think maybe those pages should be linked throughout the article especially for ICBC and Translink. Anyone who isn’t from BC won’t exactly know what those are and it would be much easier if they didn’t have to scroll to the bottom to get to the page.

- You repeated some information such as “protecting the air quality and lowering British Columbia's carbon footprint.” You mentioned again in the second paragraph about how it is aimed to improve air quality/lower emissions. When I read it the first time through it felt a little like a repeat of information.

- Also, not sure if you could find this information, but what exactly happened if you car didn't pass AirCare? Did the insurance significantly increase? Would you have to do repairs and try AirCare again? This wasn't clear in the article and it would be great information to add! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvenutii (talk • contribs) 23:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from Vicente

- The topic of the page should be more explicit. You understand it as you read it but there should be a lead header that clearly explains the topic of the page.

- Regarding the history section, you should try to write a more comprehensive history and maybe not focus on the prices so much.

- Link to the ICBC page or even the British Columbia Page.

- Regarding the structure of the page, if you open with start of the program it makes sense to continue with the timeline of its development rather than going directly to the technical aspects of it.

- Adding on to that, I am not sure that "Aircare testing" and "Testing Cites" should go under the "History" header.

- "Effectiveness of the Program" could be under the History header as it involves its aftermath and consequences.

- All the section on cancellation and post-cancellation could also fit under history and maybe another section could be created for the procedural aspects of Aircare like Testing and Testing cites.

Peer Review from Jacob

Remember to include a title on this page. Also, you are missing a brief background “Lead” section at the beginning. In a short paragraph, you should explicitly say that AirCare is a government program operating in British Columbia, and give a short statement about its main goals.

The “Start of Program” section can be within history--it doesn’t need it’s own section. History implies that you will be explaining how the program began. I would suggest reorganizing the article and putting history as only explaining the beginning of the program, and then moving “AirCare Testing”, “Testing Cities” and “Effectiveness of the Program” all under a new header called “Scope of AirCare” because testing and the specific cities it operates in doesn’t fit under the history of the program, although it is certainly information worth including.

I like how you made cancellation of AirCare its own section, because the reader is able to learn a lot of details about the effects of the cancellation. However, in the paragraph directly under the subheader “cancellation of aircare” you missed an opportunity to link to other wikipedia pages such as “Envirotest Canada”, “ICBC” and “Ministry of Environment”. Also in this same paragraph, I would state only when the program was discontinued, not that it started in 1992, because that was previously said and is not really relevant to this section.

Comments from Rosie

Irrelevant info: Quite a bit of the information you provide is of little interest now that the program has ended. If you haven't already, you should make yourselves a list of why people might want to read about a program that has been cancelled (don't include this on the page), and then reconsider all the information you provide in the light of these reasons. Information that should be cut includes:

List of testing sites (not 'cites'!)
How car owners checked if they needed to do AirCare.
Drop in prices after 2014

Post AirCare Cancellation section: (maybe retitle as Initiatives after AirCare Cancellation?) This material doesn't really fit under the AirCare title of the page. But it's interesting and important enough that you should keep it, and introduce it in the Lead section that all your peer reviews remind you to create. But you should reedit the list of government initiatives into a single summary paragraph - even though you've already summarized what the original source says, it still reads too much like a government press release (not 'neutral POV').

Factual errors:

You misunderstand 'tax grab'. The concern was that the province was taking money from AirCare fees and using it for other purposes.
The drop in AirCare prices after 2013 was simply because the program was being phased out - it had nothing to do with changes in demand.

Effectiveness: Can you find failure-rate data from when the program began, not just from 2002?

Rosieredfield (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruth

Good page, I like it! Just a few things to make it an excellent page!

Could you have some more pictures? I am not sure what you could have, the aircare logo if there was one? A picture of a testing location if you can find one?

Don’t forget the intro paragraph. Is the first paragraph of your history section supposed to be your intro paragraph. This is supposed to go above the contents box.

Another intro paragraph at the start of the in the Cancellation of Aircare section.

Overall: You need to rearrange a bit and improve the flow of the article as a whole.

Typo: “The aimed to prevent old cars”

Things that need to be links to Wikipedia pages:

ICBC, needs to be made a link and/or needs to be explained what that is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_Corporation_of_British_Columbia

British Columbia

All the cities listed and any locations that have a Wikipedia page i.e. Fraser Valley

Translink

Biodiesel

… and many more things that should be links!

RuthVancouver (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments from Rosie

The content is still not well organized and quite repetitive. (Attention from a copy editor would be very welcome.)

Many of the corrections and improvements requested by the instructors and peer reviewers have not been made:

'cites' should be 'sites'.
'The aimed' error persists
The relationship between cancellation and fees was not corrected.
The section about 'tax grab' was not corrected.
The 'Nine things' section should have been summarized, not just had its paragraph breaks removed.

Rosieredfield (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]