Talk:LW2 (classification)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 00:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review on this article. North8000 (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

One item (preliminary vague at this point) is that (possibly due to editor's higher level of expertise in the subject) it seems to presume knowledge of some things without saying them. Being a dummy on this topic might qualify me to spot and fix a few. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is one area (IMHO important, considering the nature of the topic) which is either not covered or not clearly covered. I'm assuming that this is a particular standard the contents of which is authored and controlled by some organization. And I assume that it is implemented by bodies which run for competitions (by "implement" I mean make the decisions regarding which participant is in which class). This article really does not say or make clear who authors/controls it and who implements it. In some places it uses the term "classification" and it's not clear which of those two functions "classification" means. In some cases it appears that the details of the standard change with the event? Could you clarify this in the article? (and if there is more than one version of the standard, which body authors/controls the contents of each of those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was the main thing that I noted. Article looks pretty good. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the definition section it says that The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) explicitly defined this classification and A national federation such as Alpine Canada handles classification for domestic competitions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The items that I noted is on all 5 articles. I figure we can start with LW3 as an example location to sort it out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Sport" there is quote ("In 2000, a skier had a "distorsion of the plexus brachialis and anterior luxation of the shoulder".) which is unsourced. (Quotes need to be sourced.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Sincerely. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider a more explanatory title, but that is just a future idea. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has one image, and it's a free image, so no article-specific rationale is required. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Has one image and one video. Both are free, so no article-specific rationale is required. North8000 (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes as a Good Article

This article passes as a Good Article. Congratulations! North8000 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes as a Good Article

(This is "duplicated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded.)

This article passes as a Good Article. Congratulations! North8000 (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]