Talk:LW9/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 15:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

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 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) 16:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was the main thing that I noted. The article looks pretty good. North8000 (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pass: In reading this article I believe it is detailed and specific to the requirements, training, equipment and events of only the LW9 classification. The article states that classification is done by the IPC, or national organizations such as Alpine Canada or the Australian Paralympic Committee. I believe the article is clear enough is describing who creates the classifications however, it could be stated a bit clearer who is responsible for implementation and enforcement for specific events.

Also, references appear to disappear in the middle of the Techniques sections. There are references at the end, but it is confusing as to where the information for the American Training System came from.

Every paragragh is referenced. There is a footnote at tyhe end of the paragraph, per the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the events section of the article is in need of some updating. Although references are made to events in the 2011/2012 ski season, the events section ends in 2009.

Images have been added of the 2012/2103 IPC championships at la Molina, Spain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall however, these are details that are overshadowed by the quality of the rest of the article. It deserves a pass in my opinion, with future work necessary to maintain GA status. Nosnowjustice (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks (such as on the point I raised) are just a part of the process. North8000 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The (still open) item 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) 13:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. North8000 (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under events, there is this partial sentence: "The 1998 Winter Paralympics mirrored the 1994 Games for events included, and classification / medal grouping." I couldn't fix it because I don't know what it is trying to say. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider possible expansion of the title, but that is not germane to this review. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this requirement. North8000 (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. Sufficiently broad for its topic. North8000 (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meets this criteria.North8000 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 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) 02:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has one image, a free image so no article-specific rationale is required. North8000 (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update Meets this criteria. Has one image and two videos, all free so no article-specific use rationale is required.North8000 (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article

This has passed as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations! North8000 (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]