Wikipedia:Peer review/TIRTL/archive1

TIRTL

I am not nominating this for a FA per se. I'm just interested if it will hold up to a broader perspective. JaKaL! 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a generic name for an object, or is it a product produced by a specific company? If the latter, this needs to be made clear, and it will need to cite some outside sources, not produced by that company, that discuss the product. CDC (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the name for a specific product. I am searching for outside sources from the Departments of Transportations that are using this unit currently. Once I have found this information, I will edit the article and post to this page. Would it be best to internally cite the documents, or is it sufficient to attach them in the links? I have edited the article to (hopefully) resolve the first issue mentioned. Please let me know if there's more that needs to be done to resolve the ambiguity. JaKaL! 14:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That helps, thanks. On sources: If this is a notable product, it has probably been reviewed in a trade publication read by traffic managers or engineers. A large academic or public library would have such a thing. Cite reviews specifically, if they say anything interesting. This is critical; without this kind of external review, the article reads like the datasheet or technical marketing materials produced by the product's maker. On that note, the bulleted points in the Performance and Power Supply sections probably aren't necessary; a few key points from them could be included in paragraph form, but I don't think it's necessary to say what kind of batteries this thing uses.

To be honest, in my opinion the most useful way to cover this topic for our readers would be to include it as part of a larger discussion of this type of traffic counter, or traffic counters in general. There are probably other similar devices, with only relatively small technical variations. I notice that traffic counter is a red link right now. CDC (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make the article more encyclopedic, tell the reader about its origins (when/why/where it was developed), and more about the data output (screenshot of results graphs, what have the results used for - in real life, not theory). Also, CDC makes some excellent suggestions above. It appears the article was written from info obtained from the external links listed in the article, in which case those are "References". "External links" simply list further suggested readings. --maclean25 20:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]