Talk:Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics

Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 13, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 31, 2010	Good article reassessment	Not listed
May 6, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 9, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Matthew Stockford won three bronze medals for Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics?
Current status: Good article

Olympics: Paralympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Paralympics task force. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Disability

Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Peer Review[edit]

This review was undertaken at the request of an editor on the Olympics Project talk page. The article looks good, I did a touch of copy editing in the lead. It's a shame that so much of the article is red-linked. I'm not sure how that will affect its GA candidacy. That's up to the individual reviewer. Your explanation of the disability classifications is good. You probably want to convert the metric distances per WP:UNIT. Any images? The GA Criteria recommend images wherever possible. H1nkles (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the distances, my hope is that they accept the redlinks as WP:OLY policy as for an image i've looked but finding any info on these Games is difficult an image seems impossible. Thanks for taking the time to look over the article - Basement12 (T.C) 11:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain?[edit]

The name of this article is wrong. "Great Britain" is an island. The country that includes amongst others the island of Great Britain is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The generally accepted short form of the country's name is the United Kingdom. Teams that participate in Paralympic tournaments are national teams, i.e. the team represents a country, not an arbitrary piece of land. Roger (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, a thousand times no. The name of the team at the Games IS GB. See Talk:Great Britain at the Olympics#Requested move for a summary of the seemingly endless discussions on this theme. Basement12 (T.C) 13:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that it be explained in the article itself, perhaps in a hatnote. Roger (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already something to this effect in the lead "The team was able to be made up of athletes from the whole United Kingdom..." Basement12 (T.C) 14:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additional sources[edit]

The New beacon, Volume 78, Issues 916-926 (Royal National Institute for the Blind) - piece on Richard Burt
Possible discussion of sports policy issues in relation to the 1992 winter paralympics for UK: Survey of current affairs, Volume 19, By British Information Services, Great Britain. Central Office of Information, Great Britain. Central Office of Information (found using Google Books, but can't see the relevant text)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In the lead, the reader might feel "cheated" by the prose saying "all three disciplines", and then not mentioning what they are.
The section "Team selection and funding" mentions nothing about team selection. How where the athletes actually selected?
Use a multiplication sign (×) rather than the letter x when writing relay distances. (I've fixed this as it arguably is beyond the GA criteria)
There is a stray } in ref 13
Ref 12 and 13 need archive dates. Normally when referencing an archive, provide the dead link in the url field, and provide the archive in the 'archiveurl' field.
To me, the formatting of the publisher field is rather odd, with the use of an external link instead of a wikilink. For instance in ref 1, the URL goes to the necessary place, while I would have said it was more encyclopedic to then provide a link to 'International Paralympic Committee' instead of their main web page, which can easilly be reached via the reference's URL.
Similarly, it seems unnecessary to say "The Official website of the British Paralympic Association" when it could just state "British Paralympic Association", as that could only be understood as that it came from the official source.

Overall the article is encyclopedic and well-written. There are no images, but I cannot find anything appropriate on the Commons, so it is acceptable. Placing article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've made the changes to the lead and references as suggested - I've wikilinked each source the first time it appears in a reference, I assume repeating the links isn't needed? On the "Team selection and funding" section the team selection part is the mention of athletes from the whole UK being eligible (a contensious issue covered in depth here). As for how athletes were chosen I have no idea and couldn't find any info. For recent Games it is often the nation that earns a place and can then allocate it to anyone who has achieved the qualifying standard but I suspect at this time there was still little competition for places - Basement12 (T.C) 10:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my late replay. I have taken some time to read in detail the previous discussions about if the article meets the GA criteria, and I cannot establish specifically why the article does not have a wide enough coverage. There is however one small issue: the article provides an external link to IPC; for such a remove topic provides little value. A link to a site about the 1992 Games or even British team might be acceptable, but as far as I can see, the site does not provide more information about GB at the 1992 Games than is provided in this article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IPC website, via the "Results" (link on the right of the page under the calendar), contains the database of all full results for all events at all Paralympic Games (reference 1 comes from this website). An example of how it could be deemed useful is that searching for an event gives results (timings etc) for the athletes the British team competed against (which in an ideal world would be in all the redlinked WP articles). For now i'll change the link from the website frontpage to a link directly for the results database but I can remove it entirely if you think that is the better option - Basement12 (T.C) 20:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will pass the article. The new link is better, and although I would not have added it, I will let it be up to your judgment. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090730151256/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/Pdf%20files/Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions