Talk:Lincoln Towing Service/Archives/2012

Photo need
If someone could get a photo of one of the Lincoln Towing signs, it should be added to the article.Shsilver 00:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely get a photo this summer, not sure if I can get one this week.
 * I think I got an old sign. Most competitor (especially Philips Towing) new signs are quoting $150/37.50 rates in other Loop  parking lots that were along my walking path yesterday.  I guess a quick phone call could confirm this belief.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Business
Do we have any idea what proportion of their business is parking enforcement and what percent is roadside assistance/lockouts? What other types of towing clients are there?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Some more improvements needed
Shsilver 18:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Date of founding and date of incorporation, which were apparently separated by at least three years.
 * When it was incorporated, I know that Cascio added a partner, John G. Johnson, but I don't know when that happened.
 * There's also the role LTS played in the City Council establishing laws and licenses regarding towing companies.
 * Owners other than Cascio and Mash.
 * I am adding these to the WikiProject_Chicago/COTW/To_Do —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs).

Ref links
The newspaper references seem to imply they were found online somewhere, there is a retrieval date, but no link to the article, the Trib stuff I know is available at ProQuest's Historical Chicago Tribune database, which I have access to but the others? IvoShandor 03:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is on ProQuest, no links because not everyone has access.Shsilver 11:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyone can pretty much get access to it, at a local library, somewhere, but okay, no big deal. IvoShandor 11:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Add links where possible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it were available for free on-line, I would have added links, but the database is only available to people with password access, so adding a link to a page that asks for a password seems rather silly.Shsilver 01:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is no free alternative a link to a database like ProQuest is OK. Databases like these are widely available to almost anyone who will take the trouble to go to their local library, and they are free there too. It simply provides one further way to verify information. We have to keep in mind that often Wikipedia itself cannot be cited in academic work, thus the easier we make it to track down citable information the better we are doing our job of disseminating "the sum of human knowledge" for free. IvoShandor 03:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability
I am trying hard to see the notability of this company. Can someone point out to me, aside from the unverified assertion in the first line that its a large company, where this article asserts the notability of this company? – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡ ) 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article seems to be sourced reliably, which in and of itself is proof of notability. Are you confusing notability and fame perhaps? Not famous but notable as evidenced by the coverage in the extrememly large Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune. IvoShandor 23:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification there, I guess. If notability is simply reliant on notable sources, that will make article writing a lot more easy from here out. I understand your point about fame, but that's not my point. I would have assumed that simply because there are 496 notations for "salt and pepper shakers" on Google Scholar that would not have qualified salt and pepper shakers for their own article. However, using the logic that notability is only proven by notable sources, I have a new article to write. – Freechild ( ¡!¡!¡!¡ ) 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Found this, this article seems notable to me. And to answer your point there Freechild, they do have their own article! Salt shaker and pepper shaker. Anything else you want to find on the wikipedia, try it in singular. It is more than likely here!--Kranar drogin 23:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it is one of the few towing companies to have a song written about it. More seriously, as noted above on this page, but not yet worked into the article, this company was responsible for an introduction in Chicago of laws governing towing services.Shsilver 01:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Freechild: That's basically the criteria, see WP:CORP: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.


 * This is a bit subjective so everyone is going to interpret and defend it differently. I will take a closer look at the trib sources and see if they meet this criteria, but I suspect that most do. I don't know, maybe not. IvoShandor 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Auto Peer Review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] ✅--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * arguably
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

GA Nominee
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * Well written?:
 * 1) lead sections [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]
 * 2) layout [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]
 * 3) jargon [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]
 * 4) words to avoid [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]]
 * 5) fiction [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]
 * 6) list incorporation [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]


 * Broad in coverage?: [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|15px]] This article needs more coverage.


 * Neutral point of view?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] The article counts on a very good neutral point of view.


 * Stability of the article?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.


 * Images?: [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] The deficiency of images is not a step/criteria of fall. Anyway, the images have a very good quality and a Fair Use Rationale template.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note below showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Macys123 —Preceding comment was added at 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)