Talk:Study shows shopping cart injuries rise after US safety standards set

Study

Problem is now that I can't verify as of yet the study: [1]. It's not in the January table of contents. Need to check this out. Crtew (talk) 13:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok I found it after I got back to my office. Sage Publication's web page However it was from December. The reports that I see elsewhere say about this story are saying January. Crtew (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2337682 [Not ready]

Revision 2337682 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Though I'm only checking one box "not ready", there are really two difficulties here. The lede isn't succinctlying giving me the focus. Every 22 minutes a child in the US is injured. Okay. Is that higher or lower than expected? What, that is, is its significance? I also note, on the side, that the lede does not say specifically when this occurred (when the study was published), which is also part of telling the reader in the lede why the focus is newsworthy. We ask in synthesis for two mutually independent trust-worthy sources corroborating the focus. (It's often hard to know where to put this on the review template, as it serves almost all the review criteria in one way or another.) Now, we do have some precedent here and there for a data-mining form of OR, where the material is basically all drawn from a single, primary source... but I'm leery of that, not to get onto a slippery slope, and have tried in the past to distinguish data mining proper, which is clearly OR, from summary which is more like copyvio. Sometimes a delicate line to draw. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 2337682 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Though I'm only checking one box "not ready", there are really two difficulties here. The lede isn't succinctlying giving me the focus. Every 22 minutes a child in the US is injured. Okay. Is that higher or lower than expected? What, that is, is its significance? I also note, on the side, that the lede does not say specifically when this occurred (when the study was published), which is also part of telling the reader in the lede why the focus is newsworthy. We ask in synthesis for two mutually independent trust-worthy sources corroborating the focus. (It's often hard to know where to put this on the review template, as it serves almost all the review criteria in one way or another.) Now, we do have some precedent here and there for a data-mining form of OR, where the material is basically all drawn from a single, primary source... but I'm leery of that, not to get onto a slippery slope, and have tried in the past to distinguish data mining proper, which is clearly OR, from summary which is more like copyvio. Sometimes a delicate line to draw. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Issues addressed

I addressed the editor's comments by doing the following:

1. Added two additional sources that were published sine the press release that verify the numbers we use and are also found in the press release.
2. Tweaked the lede paragraph so that enough context is given. This creates a better flow from the headline, the first paragraph and the backup paragraph.
3. About the when factor (I need to give you a longer explanation so that you understand my hesitancy): I'm uncomfortable saying that the article was published in January as one publication in the sourcing did because if you go to Sage and look at the citation data, it was actually first published in December. There is a lag between print and online availability. Most of the news sites are opting for the simple approach. I was trying to deal with this by stating that it was recently published, but you're right in saying that this isn't helpful enough. I would be comfortable with the wording "released in January". The embargo was just lifted. So I'll make that change, too.

The editor's comments have led to improvements in the article. Thank you Pi Zero! Crtew (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

As a weapon

Hi! This is shaping up nicely and I hope to review later tonight. At present, I'm watching a documentary which prevents me giving the full attention a review deserves and requires. But, given you mentioned some unusual incidents at the end, I thought you might appreciate this article on a story I recall running into at the time. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2338741 [Passed]

Revision 2338741 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As a reviewer I greatly appreciated the talkpage notes going over the changes made after the first review :) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 2338741 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As a reviewer I greatly appreciated the talkpage notes going over the changes made after the first review :) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.