Talk:1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games

File:1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games Competitors Team Photograph.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games Competitors Team Photograph.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 June 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games Competitors Team Photograph.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fayedizard (talk · contribs) 09:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article in accordence with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles, Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations. Sport is a new area for me so I'm also going to be looking at existing GA-class articles like 1960_Winter_Olympics and 1948_Winter_Olympics - and even FA class articles like 1956_Winter_Olympics and 1952_Winter_Olympics, although obviously the requirement isn't going to be that strict. The review will be completed today (23rd June) and there will be a straightforward seven days to correct any issues that come up.

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.	There are a few issues here… *"competing in several events with success" -> is this that they won medals, or simply that they just commpeated in several events? "It was decided to hold the Games in Perth due to Royal Perth Hospital having a well developed spinal unit and it hosting the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games." this is a little confusion - one would pressume that the games where held in Perth because the other commonwealth games where already been held in perth - can we clarify? I'd certainly like to see a source in any case… "participating countries were only required to pay their transport and accommodation costs to and from Australia." Surely just their transport costs are to and from? Or does this include stop-overs? "Other Australian States were consulted and requested to provide funding. The funding quotas in pounds were: Victoria 2,500, New South Wales 2,500, Western Australia 2,600, Queensland 1,000, South Australia 450 – a total of 9,250 pounds" feels quite clunky at the prose level and I'm not feeling like I'm getting all the information -> would it be accurate to change to "Australian States provided a total of £9,250 of funding."? "The balance sheet at the end of the Games, showed that expenditure was 11,717 pounds and there was a surplus of 2,089 pounds." Again a bit clunky - maybe "The total spend of the Games, was 11,717 pounds with a surplus of 2,089 pounds." "The Opening Ceremony was described as a 'colourful spectacle'." - by who? "The Western Command Band and the red coated jungle green clad guard of honour provided the music and colour to the ceremony." - can this be phrased a little differently? I'm genuniely confused by the "red coated jungle green clad guard of honour" part… I'd like to just check that "wheelpast" is the correct term? - I might have gone with 'Parade' or similar - but entirely up to you… "The Games were opened by the Governor of Western Australia, Sir Charles Gairdner on 10 November 1962. In his opening speech Gairdner stated that "The public must learn that the handicapped person is not an invalid. I am handicapped, but the one thing I loathe is for people to treat me as an invalid. We, the public, must realise what can be done to rehabilitate people who have suffered a grevious physical disadvantage".[1]" - this is a great segment and should lead this section. "The event was heightened by a running commentary by Australian television broadcaster Allan Terry." - I'd like to see a source here, but also I'm not sure how Allan 'heightened' the event… :( "Hugh Leslie said "This event," - might be handy to remind us that he's the chairman, but up to you… "Dignitaries at the opening ceremony highlighted the importance of the Games. " I'd drop this, I don't think it adds much as a sentence… "had the colour of the opening " - It's hard for the reader to tell what this means - can we rephrase? "in his closing address thanked Australia" - missing comma after address. "Dr Sir Arthur Porritt, Chairman of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games Federation declared" - missing comma after foundation. "In his speech, he hoped" bit of a confusing phasing… how about "In his speech he told the auidence that he hoped"? "ospital's special coach,a Red Cross bus," missing space. "Flags, Badges and Medals" and "Participating Teams" are both single paragraph sections - is it possible to combine them with other sections? I've combined it with the section about transport and logistics. Graham87 08:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC) "Bedbrook, The founder" - case of T. Fixed. Oops. Graham87 08:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC) In the reflections - there's quite a lot of spaces missing after " symbols… I'm not sure what you mean here, but have either Tony or I fixed it? Graham87 08:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC) "Two major Commonwealth countries were not represented. Canada decided not to attend and South Africa left the Commonwealth and was therefore excluded" - this sentance has south africa both in and out of the commonwealth - can we clarify? Fixed by removing South Africa – it withdrew from the Commonwealth in 1961. Graham87 08:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	*This is the part where the article starts to struggle a little, the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lead_section) states that "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." and, in this case, almost all of the information in the lead doesn't appear in the remainder of the article… that's going to require quite a bit of a push to get sorted. *Second thing to think about is the number of tables - it's quite overwhelming, and I'm still trying to think about how best to deal with them. Taking them one at a time… List of atheles is reasonable, but I think would look much better if a) the group picture was moved away so it didn't interfere with the layout and b) you combined the male and female althetes for this one… Medals by country is, of course, vital, but there is some issue with India on my browser that needs a bit of fixing… **The rest of the tables (the medals per event ones) I would genuninely look into spining them out into their own article - I think that would make the article much more managable for the reader and other editors - but I'm happy to have a conversation about this - it's more a 'What Fayedizard thinks about the article' rather than 'required for GA'
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Generally good - I may have missed a couple though… and fixing the lead might throw some more out. There are quite a few statements without citation in 'Transport', 'Flags Badges and Medals' and 'Participating Teams' - In particular I'd like both of "There were ninety three athletes from nine countries." and "report stated that only 89 athletes competed" to be cited. It would also be nice to see more online sources for things (Google Books is always good) - and for the sources to be slightly less primary… At a quick glance, there don't seem to be many online sources that deal with the games in more than a trivial way. I'll let the main editor comment on this point if he would like. Graham87 08:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
	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).	As above.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Appears pretty good.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No obvious problems
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I think the medal tables pretty much count as unecessary detail - but happy to have a conversation about this.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems :)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems, appears to be the work of one decidated editor.
	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.	I'm a little unsure of myself on a couple of these - I'm going to grab someone I trust on this. Person I was going to ask was busy, but the response at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Request_for_aid_on_reviewing_images. appears to be 'drop the ticket image' and fill out the fair use details for the logo image.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions and Alt-text. Good Job.
	7. Overall assessment.	A lot of work has gone into this, but we've got a few things to address before we give it the green light. I'm going to leave the review as it is at the moment - offically it's 'on hold' but I'd like us to talk about things like the lead making the medal tables their own article - there may be a bunch more comments after that, depending on which way it goes.

Extra - Article is looking vastly better than it did 24-hours ago. The big remaining problem is that stuff in the lead is not in the rest of the article - sorting this out is doing to require changes to the prose all over the article so ideally I'd do another quick prose review after that happens. When sorting that out, it might be worthwhile to look at the number of sections you have that are only one paragraph (currently it's 8 out of 11) - might be worth combining a few together (and just finding a place to press enter a few times in the Background section). Fayedizard (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've moved much of the info that was formerly in the second paragraph of the lead to the "Participant Reflections" section, but I'm not sure where the text about the standards of the events and the outstanding athletes really belongs. I've also done a bit of copyediting, combined a couple of sections, and added paragraph breaks in the "Background" section. Graham87 10:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

A plea to go easy on the capitalisation. It really does bumpety-bump the reader's eyes. Tony (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Only things left to do now are the images - and fixing the odd thing about the medal table. :) Fayedizard (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The images are being sorted out on the HOPAU email list. I've fixed the India entry in the medal table; it was missing a point value. On the points, I think an explanation of that system is needed; it seems like five points were awarded for a gold medal, three points were awarded for a silver medal and one point was awarded for a bronze medal (which is the system I used when completing the "India" entry). However, this doesn't quite add up for the top three countries; according to this system, Rhodesia should have 89 points rather than 80 (easily explained by a typo), England should have 292 points rather than 280, and Australia should have 276 points rather than 305 (seems that at least one medal count is incorrect there). These values need to be cross-checked with the report. Graham87 02:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Corrected errors in medal table - data entry issue. Removed points score until later date - need to determine how points were awarded.

Aussiesportlibrarian (talk) 03:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC) The image problem has now been resolved by a FUR (fair use rationale) being added to the logo, and the APC donating the other two images to Wikimedia Commons. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)