Talk:Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hello. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness
- Do we have information on government funding/support?
- Obviously we are going to struggle here with a non-mainstream sport and almost no sources except for raw stats. Still I think you can fatten this up a lot by squeezing more out of the data
  - I looked up the data, and some of these events had only 15 competitors or so, and in some of Christine Blackmore's events there were only a handful of starters. Shouldn't you put rank 6/8 etc so that it is not misleading? In one race they came last but were still 6/7th etc. You can also get more information by saying things like "Only 20% of the entries finished in the top 50% of their event" and so on, or "missed a bronze medal by 0.3s" or if they were really uncompetitive, "More than 30% slower than the winner"; some of the ones I checked were. I had to pad up Australia at the Winter Olympics that way at FAR, because winter sports were so fringe in the old days that there was little but stats to work with.
  - Can also get more info by comparing with previous Paralympics. Did results/participation go up/down/steady. Were there any landmarks? eg first woman to win a medal, first to win a medal in specific discipline etc. First to attend 3/4 Olympics etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of putting stats like the ones you mentioned above would seem to me to be doing it just for the sake of padding out the article and in most cases would not be encyclopedic at all. Perhaps in a case of an athlete narrowly missing a medal it would be relevant, i'll take a look. The ranks should remain as they are, the links to the full results are included in the page and the accepted format for this type of article doesn't include pointing out the number of competitors in a given event (see WP:OLYMOSNAT). Comparison to previous Games may at first seem like a good idea but the changes to the sports and number of events included from Games to Games makes any such statistic very misleading and looking at previous results there don't seem to be any landmarks. Basement12 (T.C) 13:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you propose to have a GA that is basically a list and where almost half the prose is about a passport? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it satisfies the criteria, which I believe it does comfortably , then yes. I'm not aware of any rule that says there must be "x" amount of prose, not that there is any real shortage here, the passport information is both very important to the subject matter and only 2 lines long. Adding a pointless selection of statistics will not improve the quality of the article and as it stands it matches other similarly styled "Nation" at "Year" Olympic/Paralympic GAs in both content and layout. Basement12 (T.C) 16:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in a GA with about 9 lines of prose and half of them are about background information and the other four lines a tautology of a list. I'm not here to facilitate pointless "Made in China" style GAs YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]