Wikipedia:Peer review/Ambulance/archive2

Ambulance
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…it recently underwent a Good Article review, and having fixed all of those issues, I'm looking for a new challenge. I also feel that there's a good chance that it could meet the Featured Article Criteria with only a little bit more work!
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Frmatt (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How about a map looking at the number of ambulances per 100,000 people?
 * Good idea, I'll see if I can find some info with which to create that map.
 * What about the cost per km / trip by ambulance type in different areas of the world.
 * Good idea in principle, but the 4 km trip from my house to the hospital can cost anywhere from a couple hundred to a couple thousand dollars depending on the training of the personnel, number of personnel sent, as well as the drugs and other interventions used. Oh, and it will only cost me $45.00 (CAD) no matter what the actual cost is.  I think this is too variable to make a really good point of comparison with.
 * They now have special ambulance units for obese people. Any images data on this?
 * Yup ->thumb
 * See also section should be integrated into the text.
 * Can you explain a little bit more about how you see this happening?
 * The economics of ambulances need to be expanded.
 * Can you explain a little bit more about what you mean?
 * Lots of paper are avaliable Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What specifically are you suggesting we incorporate? I would agree that a section on actual cost (not just end-user cost) would be relevant, but are you looking for an in-depth analysis of the economics of an ambulance service?  I'm not sure that is feasible, or within the parameters of wikipedia. Frmatt (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The global scope needs to be analyzed. Not everywhere has ambulances.
 * I'm not sure what you mean, there is a section on intermediate technologies which addresses ambulance service in areas without high levels of infrastructure. To my knowledge, every country in the world has some variation on an ambulance, is there something I'm missing?
 * How about this paper Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This then begs the question, if this article is about ambulances, why would we incorporate information about places that do not have the subject of the article? This would probably be better included in Emergency medical services. Frmatt (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some areas of the world have physicians in car. Brasil often does for example ( worked in one ) as does France ( the Princes stay and play issue ).  This controversy should be addressed under staffing. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right that this section does seem a little Amero-Centric so lets try to clean that one up a bit! Thanks for the comments, feel free to drop by anytime...anyone else have comments to add? Frmatt (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Image placement and formatting needs so work. How about putting some in a gallery? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments: This is an interesting and important article, and I am glad to see people work on the larger things of the world, not just the latest episode of their favorite television show ;) Hope the feedback proves useful and good luck with the article. Arsenikk (talk)  11:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a broad article, and not everything possible can be said, so selectiveness is essential. The current total length is about right. I was sort of expecting more main use, such as related to military, crewing and equipment. Part of my concern is related to the very short section about history, which need to be expanded many-fold.
 * There are a lot of bulleted lists, and even some numbered. The latter should only be used when numbering is essential, for instance when referring a sequence or importance. I would have liked to have seen the lists converted to prose, and the boldface replaced with links. Personally I would like to have seen a full paragraph on each subtype under "functional types", while under "vehicles" I would like to have seen them grouped into paragraphs discussing similar groups (such as flying, seaborn etc.)
 * The article is lacking a lot of references. Every statement needs a reference, except where the lead repeats the body and non-controversial or repeating information in captions.
 * The links in the see also section should be incorporated into the text. Instead of just linking at the bottom, find an appropriate place to write the link into the prose. For instance, "air ambulance" could be made part of the prose when writing about helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft.
 * There are a lot of capitalization errors; remember that only proper nouns are to be capitalized. Term such as "all-terrain vehicle", "fire or police linked service" and "emergency care practitioner" should be lowercase. Job titles are never capitalized unless directly in front of the name and used as a title (Doctor James Smith) or the title is unique (the "Prime Minister of Canada" is capitalized, but "Smith was prime minister" is not, unless you say "Prime Minister Smith...".
 * Stating that Israel uses battle tanks as ambulances is fine. But adding a sentence about the incident that motivated it, is a bit off-topic. The whole paragraph reads as POV to me, and unsourced statements that uncritically repeats subjective claims from one side in a highly controversial conflict is not appropriate. This is not so much what is correct and not, as attempting to remain very neutral in an article about an unrelated topic.
 * The article mixes endashes and emdashes. There is at least one emdash in the military section.
 * It should be United Kingdom, not Great Britain, unless for some particular reason excluding Northern Ireland (which is for instance done in relation to rail transport). Avoid linking to countries unless linking to the articles on the ambulance service in that country.
 * It doesn't look very good when the sentence starts with a dash (to separate the key word and the description) and then a new pair of dashes is used later int he sentence.
 * Never wikilink boldface.
 * MEDEVAC should be "medical evacuation".
 * You mention above that you have to pay a fee for using an ambulance in Canada. In Norway (and I believe most of Europe), such a fee would be totally unheard of. Perhaps mention something about user payments. This could for instance go under costs (which optionally could be renamed "financing", since it seems to be about who pays, not the cost structure).

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 17:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)