Talk:LW10/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 07:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to claim this article to review. I'll probably get to it tomorrow. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

What a cool article; informative and interesting. Thanks for teaching me about something I don't know a lot about. Already a strong article.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    There are minor problems with the prose, with few typos. It's my practice to copyedit the GAs I review, and then explain what I've done, ask questions, and make suggestions. See below. Seems to follow MOS; this article follows the format of similar articles.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Most of the refs are inaccessible, so I can't check them, but I'll AGF and trust that they're accurate. (I'm okay with that; sometimes it's necessary for comprehensiveness.) I did a spot check with several sources I was able to access, and I found no problems with close-paraphrasing. See below for the few issues I found.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Seems very comprehensive. I have a question about this, though. I realize that this article is about the classification and that it links to articles that discuss sit-skiing more generally, but would there be a place in this article for more background information about the sport? I'd also like information about individual athletes that have competed in this classification. If you assure me that it's not needed--that it's out of the scope of this article, though, I'll accept it and not insist upon it.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    No images, but that possibly can't be helped. Is there a free image of an LW10 athlete available? Or perhaps you could link a video?
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for a week until the few issues are addressed. See below for more comments.

Prose Lead

  • For international skiing competitions, classification is done through IPC Alpine Skiing and IPC Nordic Skiing, with s national federation such as Alpine Canada handles classification for domestic competitions. Looks like there's a stray "s" between "with" and "national". Perhaps it belongs after "federation"? This is an incomplete sentence, and it's usually not a good idea to start sentences with a preposition. How about: "IPC Alpine Skiing and IPC Nordic Skiing handles classification for international skiing competitions, and national federations such as Alpine Canada handles classification for domestic competitions."
  • Skiers in this class use outriggers for balance, as leverage when they fall to right themselves and for turning. Run-on sentence that needs some kind of connector. Simple fix; how about: "Skiers in this class use outriggers for balance and as leverage when they fall to right themselves and for turning.
    • Re-worded: "Skiers in this class use outriggers for balance, as leverage when they fall to right themselves, and for turning". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

  • What is "Para classes"? Please explain, or at least link it.
    • Classifier jargon. Removed, as we are trying to explain things here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation as per MOS:LQ is inconsistent. Please go through the article and put punctuation outside of quotes.
  • For international para-alpine skiing competitions, classification is done through IPC Alpine Skiing. Same problem with structure as similar sentence in lead. How about: "IPC Alpine Skiing handles classification for international para-alpine skiing competitions." Which brings me to my next point.
  • You use the word "handl*" in the 1st 2 sentences in the 4th paragraph. My change to the above-mentioned sentence would be awkward if I kept the original "done through", but I think that there's a better word choice, like "determines".
    • Re-worded: "Skiers in this class use outriggers for balance, as leverage to right themselves when they fall, and for turning."
  • The sentence that begins "To generally be eligible.." again starts with a preposition and it's too long. I'd also cut the word "generally" because it's a filler word. I suggest changing its structure and dividing it into two sentences, like this: "A skier must meet a minimum of one of several conditions to be eligible for a sit-skiing classification. These conditions include a single below knee..."
  • I want to ce the next 2 sentences, but it depends on what we do with the sentences directly before, the ones I talk about in my previous point. I'll wait and tackle it on my own; it's currently fine for GA.

Equipment

  • Helmets are required for this class in para-alpine competition, with Slalom helmets required for Slalom and crash helmets required for the Giant Slalom. This reads like a list. I recommend dividing it into two sentences, like this: "Helmets are required for this class in para-alpine competition. Slalom helmets are required for Slalom and crash helmets are required for the Giant Slalom." Re: "this class": do you mean LW10? If so, I suggest that you state it here.
  • Same question about the 5th sentence. Please clarify "classification".
  • ..which are forearm crutches with a miniature ski on a rocker at the base. This phrase is unclear. I'm not sure if you're talking about the sit-ski or the outriggers. If you're defining the outriggers, I wonder if you even need to define it, since you already link it. I mean, you haven't defined sit-skis or some of the other terms you've linked.
    • Just a description of the particular ones used. I'm often pulled up by reviewers who are not satisfied with merely having links; they want the reader not to have to click on them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technique

  • ...with the skier using the outrigger and their upper body by leaning into the direction they want to turn. You use the word "with" often in this article, and often incorrectly. It's a preposition; the way you use it here and in other places is as a conjunction. Therefore, I suggest that you change this phrase to: "Outriggers are also used for turning; the skier moves their upper body and the outrigger into the direction they want to turn".
    • Done. Yes, I use "with" as a coordinating conjunction to smooth out LauraHale's staccato prose. I had to consult the APS Style Manual to see if your use of the semicolon is permissible (6-6). Decided that it was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a skier falls, they may require assistance in righting themselves to get back to the fall line. Do you mean that he or she needs assistance to both right him- or herself and return to the fall line? I mean, I know that if he or she needs to return to the fall line, he or she has probably fallen, but it may also be true that he or she has fallen and needs assistance if it's within the fall line, too. Therefore, I'd say something like: "If a skier falls, he or she may require assistance in righting him- or herself and and/or returning to the fall line". Also know that I corrected the reflexive; I know that colloquially, we state it like you do, but it hasn't become standard yet, so we either need to use the masculine form or do as I've done.
    • Use of the masculine is absolutely forbidden by the Style Manual (8-26). LauraHale invariably uses "they" and "their" in the singular. Rewritten in the plural. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing this on their own, the skier needs to position their mono-ski facing uphill relative to the fall line. As per the previous question, you need to clarify what "doing this on [him- or herself]" means. And does this refer to non-disabled skiers? If it is, you need to explain how disabled skiers to do it, or how they need assistance in order to position their skis correctly. If not, is it necessary to even state this?
    • It sort of depends on how disabled they are. In another classification, you wouldn't be able to help them get up. Many sports and categories give extra latitude to the athlete with a disability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skiers in this classification need assistance getting on and off a ski lift. This may be a stupid question: What does using a ski lift have to do with the LW10 classification, or with competing?
    • Dropped. It's an important factor in competition organisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the 2nd paragraph has to do with the techniques that LW10 skiers use. I think it best fits in an article about teaching methods, not about this particular topic. Thus, I recommend that you remove it.

Sport

  • This is the first time you mention "LW10.1" and "LW10.2". Are they other sub-classifications, like LW10.5?
  • seeded: Please explain what this means, either by linking or by adding a few words.
  • The IPC advises event organisers to run the men's sit-ski group first, and the women's sit-ski group section, with the visually impaired and standing skiers following. Unclear sentence; you use "with" as a conjunction again, so the current version seems like the women's sit-skiers and the blind and standing skiers compete together. I doubt that's what you mean, so I suggest this: "The IPC advises event organisers to run the men's sit-ski group first, followed by the women's sit-ski group section, the visually impaired, and the standing skiers."
  • Skiers in the LW10 class may injury themselves while skiing. This makes it sound like injury is allowed, like how skiers are allowed to be pushed at the start line. I doubt that's what you mean, since the rest of the paragraph describes the nature of the injuries they often receive. If so, I'd simply remove it, since the fact that they have injuries is obvious by the descriptions.
  • Between 1994 and 2006, the German national para-alpine skiing team had a skier in the LW10 class that had injuries while skiing. The skier had a clavicle fracture in 2001. This class has a higher rate of "plexus brachialis distorsion and a higher rate of shoulder injuries," compared to able bodied skiers. I don't know German, so I can't check the source's original wording. The current version makes it sound like the German skier had injuries ranging from 1994 and 2006. Do you mean that the German team only had one skier with injuries during that time? If so, I suggest changing it to: " Between 1994 and 2006, one skier in the LW10 class was injured on the German national para-alpine skiing team. He had a clavicle fracture in 2001, which corresponds to the higher rate of "plexus brachialis distorsion and a higher rate of shoulder injuries," compared to able bodied skiers, in the LW10 class".

Events

  • The class has not been grouped and been grouped for ski competitions at the highest levels of para-alpine and para-Nordic skiing. Huh? I see from what follows that the class has been grouped at high-level competitions at some point and at other points was not, since you list them. Ref34 just states that the LW10 class competed in 2002, and I assume that ref35 does the same for 2009 (the link is broken, btw); since neither probably directly supports the statement that sometimes the class was grouped at competitions and sometimes it wasn't, I suggest simply removing it, since the rest of the paragraph describes recent times when it was and when it was not.

Sources

  • Ref9d: Source doesn't support statement.
  • Ref9e: I don't see the season specified in the chart.
  • Ref10: broken. There are a few broken links; please go through and check them.
  • Ref11, 12: Ref11 doesn't directly support the statement; it just states Canada's system. I can't access ref12, so I don't know about it. Make sure that your sources supports the statements you make.
  • Ref35: broken as mentioned above.
  • I'll stop here, since GA isn't as stringent. If I see that you make an effort to check/improve your sources, I'll pass. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


No response to the review for a week, so I have to fail this GAN. If you address my feedback later and resubmit, let me know and I'll take another look at it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:LW10/GA1"