Talk:Para-alpine skiing classification/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this but the review likely won't start for at least another 48 hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• " Some classification systems are governed by bodies other than International Paralympic Committee Alpine Skiing for systems not used in international competition."Such as?
  • Special Olympics. added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• "intellectual disabilities" Mental disabilities?
  • No, it is always referred to as "intellectual disabilities"."mentally retarded" has been deprecated for a generation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Political correctness eh?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• "The first classification systems for para-alpine skiing were developed in Scandinavia," Do we have a year/period for this?
  • 1960s. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Link Sit skiers and mono-ski
  • The two point to the same article, which duly informs the reader that they are not quite the same thing. Added a link to mono-ski. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Definition

• Do LW1, LW2, LW3, LW4, LW5/7, LW6/8, and LW9 have articles? And the C and B class ones? Link them?
  • Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• What does Locomotor Winter mean?
  • It's just an English word. Linked to the Wiktionary article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Remove excessive links to Amputation, Paraplegia and Visual acuity, just once will do.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Governance

• International Paralympic Committee Alpine Skiing. Link?
  • Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• " ISMWSF In 2003, ISMWSF merged with ISOD, and changed its name to the International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS) in 2004." Beginning of the sentence doesn't make sense.
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Article seems to provide a pretty decent overview of this. However, several photographs might help liven it up a little, only if relevant of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Issues addressed, so article passes. Wizardman 04:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)