Talk:Ski flying

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ski flying/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MPJ-DK (talk · contribs) 03:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, as part of the GA Cup I am going to start to review this article now. I will provide running updates and then indicate when I have been through the entire article.  MPJ-US  03:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Checking the sources I do not know the reliable source status of the follow websites:

  • harrachov.cz Green tickY
    • Official site of the ski resort and venue in question. The person being interviewed (Pavel Ploc) had a famous crash at the venue, but this is the only source (beside YouTube footage) I could find to verify the year when it occurred. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am okay with that source
  • skisprungschanzen.com Green tickY
    • Longtime repository of ski jumping/flying hill information with lots of stats and figures. The site has been around since at least 2005, and does not rely on user-submitted material. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not being into ski flying I cannot judge it, but the fact that it's not user-submitted is a plus. Would this possible fall under "industry expert"?
        • I would regard it as such, yes. The stats and figures on venues are very in-depth (something which the FIS on their site have never been too good at providing), and the staff at the site regularly report on things like constructional updates to hills, visits to events, and garner knowledge from the FIS and hill designers themselves. From what I've seen, all the things they've reported over the years has turned out to be true. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • skokyparda.wz.cz Green tickY
    • Likely not much more than a very old fansite, but I used it only for the directly-linked image to highlight a visual description. Can remove if need be, but it's an excellent depiction of the ski placement technique question. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • So the specific source is picture only and a fairly uncontroversial subject so I am okay with that.
  • za-progiem.pl Green tickY
    • Polish ski jumping news site—one of many. I used it for the line about Vikersund welcoming competition with Planica. The person being interviewed (Havard Orsteen) does exist, and I highly doubt they would fake a bunch of quotes. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am okay with this
  • InfostradaLive
    • Redundant ref now removed, as the PDF is more reliable in confirming the name "Ski Flying World Cup". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Problem solved
  • skispringen.com
    • German ski jumping news site which has been around since at least 2008, and continues to be updated today. The person being interviewed within the ref is the second-highest ranking member of the FIS event organisation team; the ref confirms who he is, and corroborates a statement about wind measurement terminology (namely, "corridor of tolerance"). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking all news sites as reliable without question, these above links though do not seem to be straight up news sources

  • Source #125 should list NRK, the Norwegian television channel, as the source.

The following sources come up as a change to the sub domain - to prevent link rot would recommend updating them to the current urls

  • 39
  • 46
  • 48
  • 49
  • 78
  • 79
  • 86
  • 122
  • 131
  • 135
  • 137

The following sources come up as dead and must be updated

  • 61
  • 115
  • 77
  • 53
  • 18
  • 81
  • 132
    • Most links now replaced with archived versions and updated retrieval dates. #18 and #86 were already archived. #81 has been zapped completely, which is a shame, as it showed clearly the height in question. It was one of those YouTube thumbnail shots that you randomly get from Google Images. I don't suppose, at a stretch, something like Imgur could be used to host the image? #132 has now been replaced with a different, slightly more detailed source. #46, #48, #78 and #79 remain the same PDF-linked URLs on my end. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will check over the fixed sources. Not sure about the picture question.
      • Green tickY on the source fixes.
        • The remaining ref which was dead (an image to support to figure stated) is now here. As it is from video footage that can be widely found on YouTube, I can provide details on who and where the subject of the image is. To me it's an invaluable snapshot to illustrate how high the athletes can still get, when wind conditions are perfect. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style

  • Lead is too short of an article of this size, per WP:LEAD it should be 3-4 paragraphs long to properly summarize the major aspects of the article
    • Have now tried to expand it to three paragraphs by adding key years for when the six venues opened, plus some mentions about the danger aspect and changes in technique. I also tacked on some attendance figures at the two most prolific venues today, but I'm unsure as to whether that fourth paragraph could be puffed up just a little bit more... Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Green tickY
  • The following links go to Disambiguation pages and not a specific article: Werner Schuster, Mike Holland
  • According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), all measurements and their units must have "& nbsp;" (no space) between then
    • Does "& nbsp;" have to be placed within all conversion templates, or only for the instances where they are not used? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe the conversion templates are excluded from this, only where it is in plain text.
  • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) - Headings should not start with "the"
    • Must it be "Event" on its own? I tried to think of a more descriptive title, but I ran out of ideas. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Events"? or "Event details"? Either would work for me
  • Headings should not repeat the title of the article if at all possible.
  • There are a number of American and British English spelling differences, please make the article consistent one way or the other, examples generated below
  • honour (B) (American: honor)
  • meter (A) (British: metre) / metre (B) (American: meter)
  • organise (B) (American: organize)
  • realize (A) (British: realise)
  • categorise (B) (American: categorize), isation (B) (American: ization)
  • equalling (B) (American: equaling)
  • curb (A) (British: kerb).
    • The only Americanism I could find was "curb", which is not being used in the same way as a roadside "kerb". Would "check" be a better term for intentionally holding back on speeds? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay so I will keep the British spelling in mind as i go through this. I think "check" does work
  • Weasel phrase " It has been described", can you reword that?
    • I could reword it to "Dashiell Bennett at Business Insider has called it an extreme sport", but then that would require expansion for the other descriptions, which would seem to break up the brevity of the sentence (one of them doesn't have a specific author). Is it absolutely necessary for it to be changed? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • As phrases go, this is pretty harmless and sourced. Green tickY

Overall

This article is HUGE, it will take me a while to go through it all and am wondering if the length is a detriment, if I look at at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, it would recommend a Summary style.

So have patience, it will take me a while to get through this but i figured I would start with the above to give you something to start on.

  • From day one I had a feeling the article length might be an issue, but I've resisted the temptation to break it off into separate sub-articles. I know I've seen articles just as long—if not longer—with massive History sections. I also wouldn't like to see the Rules and other such sections broken off—least of all shunted to the ski jumping article, which I've barely touched. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would not be a deal breaker, looking at this the obvious part to break out if you choose to would be "History of Ski flying" and have this article summarize it.

Copyright violations

I checked on the tool that's on this page and found a couple of sources that had a high enough percentage that I had to take a closer look at them. Going through them the issues they picked up on were directly quoted in the article with attributions so that's not a problem as far as I can tell. Green tickY

Images

Looking through the images I believe all licenses etc. are in order. the one fair use claim is truly low res and I think that is acceptable. Green tickY

General Comments

  • Not sure if the word "licence" is misspelled or if that's the British spelling? I was expecting "License"
  • Is "disacknowledge" an actual word?
    • It does appear to be a word, based on Google's various dictionary results, but I could use "denounce" if that works better. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the United States opened their own ski flying venue in 1970", referring to the US as plural seems wrong I would go with "its own"
  • "Spectactors" should be "Spectators"
  • "jumbotrons" - you may want to consider using a different term for these large screen displays, "jumbotrons" is not a universally known term
  • "Overaggression", I don't believe this is one word.
    • Tentatively changed the sentence to "aggressiveness and over-aggressiveness". If it still doesn't quite work, I can change it again. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Green tickY
  • "highly visibly in red" should be "highly visible in red"
  • "individual competitions, however an" should be "individual competitions; however an"
  • "spectacular accidents" seems to be an interpretation, perhaps considering using a different word than "spectacular"?
  • "Went on to become a sports trainer." Could that be more specific? From that phrase he could be a darts trainer for a kids league in China as "sports trainer" is about as generic as it gets.
    • I can't find any English-language sources whatsoever, and then only a few hazy mentionings of him being a "sports trainer/coach" from his Norwegian-language Linkedin account. It would seem he stayed in wintersports (likely became a skiing coach; main thing is he survived to tell the tale!), but I can remove the entire contents of his "Aftermath" section if RS is an issue. I would, however, be reluctant to remove him from the Accidents list, as the source listing him as a notable crash victim is entirely reliable (an interview with him providing analysis of the crash), and video footage of it does exist. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well since you cannot find a source I guess there is no option but to leave it the way it is, thank you for checking. Green tickY
  • "cloose" should be "close"

More as I go through it. I will go back and check over your feedback too, checking off what's ben addressed. MPJ-US  21:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cannot believe I forgot this one - First time K-Point is used I think it would be good to add the term in parenthesis, it's listed later but should be used the first time it's listed in the main part of the article.  MPJ-US  02:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done. Should the second instance of "K-point (German: Konstruktionspunkt)", later in the article, remain as it is? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it can remain if you want, not a problem.

I have checked off almost everything except if "skispringen.com" as a reliable source?

Other than that I am going to do one more read through but it's getting very close. MPJ-US  06:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source 80 - I am getting a weird gray picture? Not sure what that is about?
    • Ah, I got the ref number wrong on that one earlier. For some reason I thought #81 was the broken image. OK. The grey pic, ref #80, should be this screenshot—if it is permissible to use that (highly popular) free imagehost for it. I can provide all details on who and what is being depicted within the ref. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • My suggestion is to use imgur as the archive url, keep the original to show where it was once found. To me that's the last fix needed before I give it the GA stamp, MPJ-US  13:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am.satisfied this is indeed a Good Article. Great work. I will start to process the GA status update now. MPJ-US  13:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much thanks. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to read through it and provide all the feedback. Best of luck with the GA Cup. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hill size

Article fails to explain whether "Hill size" refer to altitude difference - or the length along the Upper Hill slope. Boeing720 (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It refers to the length of the slope from the top to a certain point near the bottom. Therefore, will fix. Should it be clarified in this section? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne

@Mac Dreamstate: "Airborne" is both the US and UK spelling. Compare this list of US and UK dictionaries with this much smaller list. The spelling "Airbourne" is only valid in a few contexts, see Airbourne. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. That's a gap in my knowledge! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which hills are currently in use?

The lead says that that "the hills (of which there are only five remaining, all in Europe)" and in the "Differences from ski jumping" section the list of hills contains seven. Six are mentioned, as currently in use, but only five of them as flying hills. But nowhere is there an indicator of the current five? My guess is it does not include Copper Peak as not in Europe but perhaps the Norwegian hill too? Perhaps identify which are current in the table? 92.2.131.158 (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It's worded a bit confusingly across the two sections. Maybe an additional column in the table for "Active" and "Inactive"? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Ski_flying"