Talk:Lead climbing

Lead climbing was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 5, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

GA Review

Unsuccessful. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lead climbing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Aszx5000 (talk · contribs) 20:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 03:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	see comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See comment below.IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm going to place this on hold while the nominator fixes the one thing I commented on and so that I can get a second opinion. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

where the 'lead climber' clips their rope to the climbing protection as they ascend a pitch of the climbing route, while their 'second' (or 'belayer') I would define both lead climber and second in the lead. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling a bit in over my head with the amount of technical language used in this article so I'm going to ask for a second opinion regarding the technical language used throughout the article. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the reviewer asked for a second opinion: I agree that the article is a bit too technical, especially the lead. See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. Especially in the lead, we should avoid or explain technical terms as best as possible to make the text accessible. Some terms could be replaced by more common words or short descriptions (which can still be linked to the technical article), or can be avoided by simplification (e.g., maybe you don't need the term "pitch" in the first sentence of the lead at all). The first sentence is especially difficult, since it already seems to assume that the reader knows that two climbers connected by a rope are involved; I guess it should be simplified to its essence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you this sums up what my worries were. I appreciate the input! IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @IntentionallyDense and @Jens Lallensack and I understand the concern. Let me think about how to fix this for you and I will ping you both back when I have redone. thanks again for your input and patience! Aszx5000 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder to Aszx5000 that this article has been on hold for over a week now. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Failing due to inactivity. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.