Talk:B1 (classification)/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
These ones don't fit totally in with the para-skiing classification articles (which all have a GA review), since they also apply to other sports. However, the problems are very similar.

Specifically for this one, let's take the lead.

• Second sentence: "Competitors in this classification Athletes in this classification [...]"

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Classification is often handled on the international level by the International Blind Sports Federation (IBSA) though classification is handled by national sport federations." Which one is it? "X is done by A though X is done by B" does not a good sentence make.

  Y Classification is often handled on the international level by the International Blind Sports Association (IBSA) although it is also handled by national sport federations.

• "Some sports have equivalents to this class, including adaptive rowing, athletics and swimming." (first paragraph of lead), and "Some sports like athletics and swimming have independently created their own classification equivalent that is comparable to the IBSA created B1 class." (second paragraph of lead) is overkill...

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Section "Definition"

• First sentence: "Legally blind"? In which country? The source given does not use the term "legally", which can differ from country to country of course.
• Y Changed to "considered blind". Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  I note that all the Australian sources say "legally blind". Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

  Seems to be the definition of legal blindness in many countries. There is probably some international rule. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Second sentence: "[...]defines this classification as visual acuity poorer than Visual acuity poorer than [...]"

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Source 4, about "newspaper print": no page number is indicated, and according to Google this book does not include the terms "B1" or "newspaper".

  Y Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Further problems include things like

• " In 2003, the IPC made an attempt in 2003 to address"

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• "IBSA was not prepared at the time to move towards a more functional classification system that is utilized other disability groups and sports." Missing word?

  Y No. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• "non-IBSA affiliated sports have developed their own classification systems." ... "At that time, four classifications existed and were the same as the IBSA for this class." If they have just copied the IBSA classifications, then they have not developed their own systems of course.

  That doesn't follow. The difference here is been classifications and classification systems. If we imagine a sport with classifications B, B' and B", where B matches B1 but B' and B" are kinda weird, then we have a classification that matches ISBA, but not a classification system. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Lead: "Some sports such as athletics specifically do not allow a guide, whereas cycling and skiing require one." Body: "Competitors must use a guide in athletics." It is not a good sign when lead and body directly contradict each other.

"The equivalent athletics classification is T11." Already said in "Definition", not relevant for the "Equipment" section, and breaks the flow of the narrative.

• "In blind cricket, four players in this class are required to be on the field at the same out of the eleven total players on the pitch. batsmen in this class have a runner for them." A missing word, a missing capital to start the second sentence, and is it exactly four, at least four, at most four?

  Y At least four. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• "In judo, all three blind sport classes compete against each other in judo[...]"

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• "The three person boat can have a maximum of five points, [...]" What points?

  Y ISBA points. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• "this class sometimes competes only against other boats with where all the sailors are in this class."

  Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

In general, I was unable to verify lots of the information as many sources are no longer available. This means that the above list of problems focuses on the obvious, text-based ones, and does not check most factual claims. All sources should be rechecked and replaced where necessary. Fram (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The half-life of sports links is about three months. Since it's been a year, 60% are probably bad. I will re-check them all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

For example, the text claims "In adaptive rowing's Coxed Four boat, LTA4+, the maximum number of rowers from this class allowed in the boat is one." but the source clearly states that the maximum is two...[1] Fram (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Still wrong. Only two B1, B2 or B3 rowers. Deleted the sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added this reassessment also to B2 (classification) and B3 (classification): B2 classification is nearly a word-for-word copy, with the exact same problems in many cases. B3 classification is less similar in parts (and had a more thorough review apparently), ut still has many of the same issues. The definition section has three times the sentence "From visual acuity above 2/60 to visual acuity of 6/60 and/or visual field of more than 5 degrees and less than 20 degrees.", plus one sentence from the Australian federation which clearly lacks context ("Athletes with slightly more vision" than who?). Sentences like "Otherwise, the swimmer competes under the normal rules governing Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA), the sport's highest authority, swimming competitions.[19] Swimming classification handled by IPC Swimming." need a thorough rewrite to make sense. Fram (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The rules for blind cricket given in all three articles don't seem to match the source[2]. E.g. B3 claims " In blind cricket, no more than four players in this class are allowed to be on the field at the same out of the eleven total players on the pitch.", but the source simply states that at most 7 players may come from B2, B3 and B4 combined, wih some extra rules for B4 but nothing for B2 or B3. Fram (talk) 12:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You have to have at least four B1s. There are no special rules for B2 and B3. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Please don't tick things you have changed in B1 but not in B2 or B3. E.g. the Vanlandewijck/Thompson source with the missing "newspaper" statements: you've removed it from B1 and ticked it here, but you haven't removed it from B2. The same goes for e.g. the cricket rules. The articles mostly have the same problems, applying the same solutions would be the best. Fram (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Status query

Fram, where does this reassessment stand? It still shows as open on the article's talk page, yet nothing has been posted for over five months. Can this be wrapped up over the next week or two? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this one should be a fail. The more I look at the articles, the more I notice problems. e.g. "This classification is borrowed by some other sports, including blind golf who also define the class as "No light perception in either eye, up to light perception but inability to recognise the shape of a hand at any distance or in any direction."[4]" That sentence, "No light perception in either eye, up to light perception but inability to recognise the shape of a hand at any distance or in any direction." has nothing to do with blind gofl but is a general definition, alo used by e.g. blind cricket, blind swimming, blind triathlon, and so on. It is a general IBSA definition and should have been included as such.

The article still is one confusing mess, with (as with almost all general Paralympics articles) an undue emphasis on Australia, and strange things like "In the United Kingdom, blind sport is handled by British Blind Sport,[18][19] which is recognised nationally by Sport England" I guess that Wales and Scotland will have another opinion about this. Sport England "has two statutory, functions: a lottery distributor for sport and the protection of playing fields". What is the relevance of this for the B1 classification?

These B classifications articles need a total rewrite, not some cosmetic touches. Until then, they shouldn't be classified as GA. Fram (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I have made all the suggested changes. Fram is acting and bad faith. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Really? The bottom-most comment before the above query was made here by me. You have afterwards edited this GA review twice, but haven't addressed these points. I'm not acting in bad faith, I'm trying to get the paralympic classification articles to an acceptable level, which is a serious task considering the state many of these articles are in. While the B1-3 articles are far from the worst, they still are far from GA-class as well. As can be seen from the many problems that were present, they should never have been promoted in the first place, but too much time had passed to immediately fail them for that reason alone, sadly. Fram (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You haven't made a single edit. So you are not trying at all. Bad faith. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

? I have edited many Paralympic classification articles extensively. I have commented specifically on the B classification ones as well, not just gave a sweeping condemnation without any evidence. But if I would have made sweeping changes similar to the ones I did at the other articles, you (or someone else) would have probably reverted me for "destroying" a GA. So I first wanted them reviewed and (if not seriously improved) stripped from the GA status. Fram (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, having just read the B1 article as it was when it was awarded GA status, I agree with Fram: the original listing as a GA was clearly inappropriate. Repeated phrases in sentences were just one aspect, but so glaring that no competent reviewer would have considered the article to meet the "well-written" criterion. Fram has indicated that some major work mentioned in March needs to be done and hasn't been; now's the time for it. Plus any other issues that he finds as the reassessment continues. I've also been reading the B1 and B2 articles as they stand now, and the prose is not at what I would consider a "clear and concise" level in a number of places. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Aussiesportlibrarian: Can we assign someone to work on this article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it would be best if that someone worked on the B1, B2, and B3 articles, since they're all covered by this reassessment and cover similar ground. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

We're now more than 2 months later and no further work has been done, so I have delisted the article (and will delist B2 and B3 as well). Fram (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)