This is heartbreaking. ANYONE in Texas knows Brian Loncar's t.v. commercials featuring 'The Strong Arm'....one of those aggressive plaintiff's attorney's who promised to help people injured in accidents. I've seen them a million times. --Bddpaux (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A tiny bit to show how wide the firm's reach is across Texas: In (about) 2004, I was involved in a traffic accident in Lindale, Texas. My injuries were very minor. About a day after my wreck, a friend called me, joking, "So, do you have Brian Loncar on the speed dial yet?!" Over about the past 14 years, you couldn't watch a Texas based t.v. station for more than an hour without seeing one of his firm's commercials. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is very marginal here. We do ask a synthesis article for two sources corroborating the focal event; this is pretty much synthesis, although there's a trace of OR (I'll grant it's not really enough to justify an {{original reporting}} tag); and the firm's website does have a notice that's obviously (though implicitly) about the fact that he died, but gives no details at all. The call on sourcing could go either way, imho. One does clearly have to be quite careful about distance-from-source, when relying heavily one one source for details, as it can be remarkably difficult to avoid getting too close to source phrasing under these circumstances. The article needed to do better on that point, which I tried to address. It really would be desirable for this sort of article to find a second news source (or, if there's a problem doing so, mention that in reporter's notes).
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.
The sourcing is very marginal here. We do ask a synthesis article for two sources corroborating the focal event; this is pretty much synthesis, although there's a trace of OR (I'll grant it's not really enough to justify an {{original reporting}} tag); and the firm's website does have a notice that's obviously (though implicitly) about the fact that he died, but gives no details at all. The call on sourcing could go either way, imho. One does clearly have to be quite careful about distance-from-source, when relying heavily one one source for details, as it can be remarkably difficult to avoid getting too close to source phrasing under these circumstances. The article needed to do better on that point, which I tried to address. It really would be desirable for this sort of article to find a second news source (or, if there's a problem doing so, mention that in reporter's notes).
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.
