Talk:LW10

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:LW10/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 07:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to claim this article to review. I'll probably get to it tomorrow. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

What a cool article; informative and interesting. Thanks for teaching me about something I don't know a lot about. Already a strong article.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are minor problems with the prose, with few typos. It's my practice to copyedit the GAs I review, and then explain what I've done, ask questions, and make suggestions. See below. Seems to follow MOS; this article follows the format of similar articles.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Most of the refs are inaccessible, so I can't check them, but I'll AGF and trust that they're accurate. (I'm okay with that; sometimes it's necessary for comprehensiveness.) I did a spot check with several sources I was able to access, and I found no problems with close-paraphrasing. See below for the few issues I found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Seems very comprehensive. I have a question about this, though. I realize that this article is about the classification and that it links to articles that discuss sit-skiing more generally, but would there be a place in this article for more background information about the sport? I'd also like information about individual athletes that have competed in this classification. If you assure me that it's not needed--that it's out of the scope of this article, though, I'll accept it and not insist upon it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images, but that possibly can't be helped. Is there a free image of an LW10 athlete available? Or perhaps you could link a video?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for a week until the few issues are addressed. See below for more comments.

Prose Lead

• For international skiing competitions, classification is done through IPC Alpine Skiing and IPC Nordic Skiing, with s national federation such as Alpine Canada handles classification for domestic competitions. Looks like there's a stray "s" between "with" and "national". Perhaps it belongs after "federation"? This is an incomplete sentence, and it's usually not a good idea to start sentences with a preposition. How about: "IPC Alpine Skiing and IPC Nordic Skiing handles classification for international skiing competitions, and national federations such as Alpine Canada handles classification for domestic competitions."
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Skiers in this class use outriggers for balance, as leverage when they fall to right themselves and for turning. Run-on sentence that needs some kind of connector. Simple fix; how about: "Skiers in this class use outriggers for balance and as leverage when they fall to right themselves and for turning.
  • Re-worded: "Skiers in this class use outriggers for balance, as leverage when they fall to right themselves, and for turning". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition

• What is "Para classes"? Please explain, or at least link it.
  • Classifier jargon. Removed, as we are trying to explain things here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Punctuation as per MOS:LQ is inconsistent. Please go through the article and put punctuation outside of quotes.
• For international para-alpine skiing competitions, classification is done through IPC Alpine Skiing. Same problem with structure as similar sentence in lead. How about: "IPC Alpine Skiing handles classification for international para-alpine skiing competitions." Which brings me to my next point.
• You use the word "handl*" in the 1st 2 sentences in the 4th paragraph. My change to the above-mentioned sentence would be awkward if I kept the original "done through", but I think that there's a better word choice, like "determines".
  • Re-worded: "Skiers in this class use outriggers for balance, as leverage to right themselves when they fall, and for turning."
• The sentence that begins "To generally be eligible.." again starts with a preposition and it's too long. I'd also cut the word "generally" because it's a filler word. I suggest changing its structure and dividing it into two sentences, like this: "A skier must meet a minimum of one of several conditions to be eligible for a sit-skiing classification. These conditions include a single below knee..."
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• I want to ce the next 2 sentences, but it depends on what we do with the sentences directly before, the ones I talk about in my previous point. I'll wait and tackle it on my own; it's currently fine for GA.
  • I've had a go. Feel free. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Equipment

• Helmets are required for this class in para-alpine competition, with Slalom helmets required for Slalom and crash helmets required for the Giant Slalom. This reads like a list. I recommend dividing it into two sentences, like this: "Helmets are required for this class in para-alpine competition. Slalom helmets are required for Slalom and crash helmets are required for the Giant Slalom." Re: "this class": do you mean LW10? If so, I suggest that you state it here.
• Same question about the 5th sentence. Please clarify "classification".
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• ..which are forearm crutches with a miniature ski on a rocker at the base. This phrase is unclear. I'm not sure if you're talking about the sit-ski or the outriggers. If you're defining the outriggers, I wonder if you even need to define it, since you already link it. I mean, you haven't defined sit-skis or some of the other terms you've linked.
  • Just a description of the particular ones used. I'm often pulled up by reviewers who are not satisfied with merely having links; they want the reader not to have to click on them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Technique

• ...with the skier using the outrigger and their upper body by leaning into the direction they want to turn. You use the word "with" often in this article, and often incorrectly. It's a preposition; the way you use it here and in other places is as a conjunction. Therefore, I suggest that you change this phrase to: "Outriggers are also used for turning; the skier moves their upper body and the outrigger into the direction they want to turn".
  • Done. Yes, I use "with" as a coordinating conjunction to smooth out LauraHale's staccato prose. I had to consult the APS Style Manual to see if your use of the semicolon is permissible (6-6). Decided that it was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• If a skier falls, they may require assistance in righting themselves to get back to the fall line. Do you mean that he or she needs assistance to both right him- or herself and return to the fall line? I mean, I know that if he or she needs to return to the fall line, he or she has probably fallen, but it may also be true that he or she has fallen and needs assistance if it's within the fall line, too. Therefore, I'd say something like: "If a skier falls, he or she may require assistance in righting him- or herself and and/or returning to the fall line". Also know that I corrected the reflexive; I know that colloquially, we state it like you do, but it hasn't become standard yet, so we either need to use the masculine form or do as I've done.
  • Use of the masculine is absolutely forbidden by the Style Manual (8-26). LauraHale invariably uses "they" and "their" in the singular. Rewritten in the plural. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Doing this on their own, the skier needs to position their mono-ski facing uphill relative to the fall line. As per the previous question, you need to clarify what "doing this on [him- or herself]" means. And does this refer to non-disabled skiers? If it is, you need to explain how disabled skiers to do it, or how they need assistance in order to position their skis correctly. If not, is it necessary to even state this?
  • It sort of depends on how disabled they are. In another classification, you wouldn't be able to help them get up. Many sports and categories give extra latitude to the athlete with a disability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Skiers in this classification need assistance getting on and off a ski lift. This may be a stupid question: What does using a ski lift have to do with the LW10 classification, or with competing?
  • Dropped. It's an important factor in competition organisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what the 2nd paragraph has to do with the techniques that LW10 skiers use. I think it best fits in an article about teaching methods, not about this particular topic. Thus, I recommend that you remove it.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sport

• This is the first time you mention "LW10.1" and "LW10.2". Are they other sub-classifications, like LW10.5?
• seeded: Please explain what this means, either by linking or by adding a few words.
  • I've linked it to Seed (sports). Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• The IPC advises event organisers to run the men's sit-ski group first, and the women's sit-ski group section, with the visually impaired and standing skiers following. Unclear sentence; you use "with" as a conjunction again, so the current version seems like the women's sit-skiers and the blind and standing skiers compete together. I doubt that's what you mean, so I suggest this: "The IPC advises event organisers to run the men's sit-ski group first, followed by the women's sit-ski group section, the visually impaired, and the standing skiers."
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Skiers in the LW10 class may injury themselves while skiing. This makes it sound like injury is allowed, like how skiers are allowed to be pushed at the start line. I doubt that's what you mean, since the rest of the paragraph describes the nature of the injuries they often receive. If so, I'd simply remove it, since the fact that they have injuries is obvious by the descriptions.
  • Changed to can injure themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Between 1994 and 2006, the German national para-alpine skiing team had a skier in the LW10 class that had injuries while skiing. The skier had a clavicle fracture in 2001. This class has a higher rate of "plexus brachialis distorsion and a higher rate of shoulder injuries," compared to able bodied skiers. I don't know German, so I can't check the source's original wording. The current version makes it sound like the German skier had injuries ranging from 1994 and 2006. Do you mean that the German team only had one skier with injuries during that time? If so, I suggest changing it to: " Between 1994 and 2006, one skier in the LW10 class was injured on the German national para-alpine skiing team. He had a clavicle fracture in 2001, which corresponds to the higher rate of "plexus brachialis distorsion and a higher rate of shoulder injuries," compared to able bodied skiers, in the LW10 class".
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Events

• The class has not been grouped and been grouped for ski competitions at the highest levels of para-alpine and para-Nordic skiing. Huh? I see from what follows that the class has been grouped at high-level competitions at some point and at other points was not, since you list them. Ref34 just states that the LW10 class competed in 2002, and I assume that ref35 does the same for 2009 (the link is broken, btw); since neither probably directly supports the statement that sometimes the class was grouped at competitions and sometimes it wasn't, I suggest simply removing it, since the rest of the paragraph describes recent times when it was and when it was not.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources

• Ref9d: Source doesn't support statement.
• Ref9e: I don't see the season specified in the chart.
• Ref10: broken. There are a few broken links; please go through and check them.
• Ref11, 12: Ref11 doesn't directly support the statement; it just states Canada's system. I can't access ref12, so I don't know about it. Make sure that your sources supports the statements you make.
• Ref35: broken as mentioned above.
  • Repaired all the broken links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll stop here, since GA isn't as stringent. If I see that you make an effort to check/improve your sources, I'll pass. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No response to the review for a week, so I have to fail this GAN. If you address my feedback later and resubmit, let me know and I'll take another look at it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:LW10/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 16:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm reviewing this article. I reviewed it for its first GAN, but the nominator wasn't able to address my feedback in a timely fashion. If I find that he addressed everything from the first GAN, I'll probably pass it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I've gone over the changes made since its last GAN, and it looks good. I'll fill out the template as is my practice, and it should be a simple pass.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose was the weakest part of this article; with the changes, it looks much better, and satisfies the GA-criteria.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The nominator followed my suggestions and fixed broken links and seemed to make sure the sources supported the statements made in the article. Again, I'm AGF regarding the "inaccessible" refs.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   My question from the last GAN didn't get answered. As I said, it won't affect its passing, since I realize that this article is about the classification and that it links to articles that discuss sit-skiing more generally. However, would there be a place in this article for more background information about the sport? I'd also like information about individual athletes that have competed in this classification. If you assure me that it's not needed--that it's out of the scope of this article, though, I'll accept it and not insist upon it.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Another question that never got answered, but won't affect its status, since images aren't a requirement for GAs. No images, but that possibly can't be helped. Is there a free image of an LW10 athlete available? Or perhaps you could link a video?

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm satisfied with this article now; it now fulfills the criteria for GA. Congrats!

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:LW6/8/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

There are some groups of very similar articles at GA level, usually created by the same people per group. This also leads to these articles all having the same or very similar problems, and if one of them needs reassessment, they are likely to all need it.

One such group are the articles on Paralympic skiing classifications: LW1 (classification), LW2 (classification), LW3 (classification), LW4 (classification), LW5/7, LW6/8, LW9, LW10, LW11, and LW12, and to a lesser degree the parent articles Para-alpine skiing, Para-alpine skiing classification and Para-Nordic skiing classification.

All are quite good in some parts, but are poorly written collections of seemingly random facts in other bits, and have their fair share of errors as well. Overcapitalization (of all skiing events, but also words like "an Ophthalmologist") is one typical problem, though not the worst.

As an example of the LW articles, let's look at LW6/8.

• End of the lead: "Events this classification has been eligible for include the 1984 Winter Olympics Exhibition Competition, 1986 World Disabled Ski Championships, 1988 World Winter Games for the Disabled, 1990 Disabled Alpine World Championships and 2002 Winter Paralympics. Skiers in this class include 2006 New Zealander Winter Paralympian Anthony Field." A seemingly random selection of events, and an utterly random selection of one skier without an article (while we do have articles on other skiers in this category).

  Y removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Skiers in this class may injure themselves while skiing. Between 1994 and 2006, the German national para-Alpine skiing team had a skier in the LW6/8 class that had an injury while skiing. At the end of team training while free skiing, the skier fractured the head of their tibia." And this is important enough to be included in an article about this classification because...?

  Y removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• "In the men and women's biathlon, this classification was again grouped with standing classes in the 7.4 km race with 2 shooting stages 12.5 km race which had four shooting stages." This makes no sense, some words seem to be missing. The 7.4 km race should be a 7.5 km race...

  Y reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• And then the last section, "Competitors": "Skiers in this class include 2006 New Zealander Winter Paralympian Anthony Field". yep, it is our friend from the lead section again, who now gets his own section for himself alone, for no discernible reason.

  Somebody wanted examples of athletes in the different classifications, but we didn't want to use Australians all the time (the easiest option), as this was perceived as a bias. I tried to get more written about athletes from other countries, and have had some success with the British and Germans. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is not an exhaustive list, we have wrong and inconsistent capitalization, more typos ("single supper arm amputation", "skiwers"), and so on.

  Sorry, I cannot find these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Or take LW10. From the lead: "LW10 skiers have been eligible to compete at the 2002 Winter Paralympics, 2005 IPC Nordic Skiing World Championships and 2009 Alpine World Championships." Only then? Not on other games and championships? Or were these the first three? As far as I can tell, these three were chosen randomly. The events at the end seem to be equally random, and the number of competitors need to be taken with a grain of salt (e.g. "At the 2009 Alpine World Championships, the class was grouped with other sitting classes with one male and one female LW10 skier in their respective downhill events." isn't true, there were more males competing but only one finished all runs.

Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

For the other articles, we can look at an article like Para-alpine skiing (or is it "Paralympic alpine skiing", start of the lead?): the section "Paralympics" has loads of irrelevant information (which event was held on which day in which Paralympics?), with the number of competitors per class and gender for two events at the 2010 games given in detail, but not for most other Games or events. Worse, the numbers given for 2010 are wrong, you can compare them here.

Para-Nordic skiing classification contains things like an out of the blue "Nonetheless, in 2006, skiers with amputation still had a medical component to their classification assessment." (end of the history section), biathlon target sizes which seem to be incorrect, sentences like "In the United States, where competitors with intellectual disabilities in events governed by the Special Olympics, [...]" which don't make sense, and so on. The "Process" section goes into detail about Canada and Australia, without a clear reason why these two deserve extra attention. The "Paralympic" section starts with the same sentence twice (first and third sentence). Similary, the first and last line of the last paragraph give us the same information. Why we should know the names the Paralympic classifiers of the 2002 games is not clear... You get things like "The 10 km event was open to LW1 to LW9, and H to D.", but "H to D" is never explained in the article.

Basically, none of these seems to meet the GA requirements and would need quite a lot of work to get them at that level. Fram (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like much work. I will get going on them over the next few days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have now delisted this. Looking at e.g. LW1 (classification), more than 6 months after the GA review was initiated, the article still has things like " In the Biathlon, athletes with amputations can use a rifle support while shooting.[17]" and "In the Biathlon, all Paralympic athletes shoot from a prone position.[17]" (LW1 isn't a classification in Biathlon), and "At the 2002 Winter Paralympics, the LW1, LW4, LW5 and LW6 classes were combined for the women's downhill, Giant Slalom and Slalom events, while on the men's side, LW1, LW3, LW5 and LW9 were combined for the downhill and Giant Slalom events.[26] ": the source given is a deadlink, but this claim isn't supported by the Paralympics result site, which claims that the grouping was "Women's Downhill LW3,4,6/8,9", "Men's Downhill LW3,5/7,9" and so on. 11:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

For LW6/8, remaining problems include "Unlike other para-Alpine disciplines, in slalom skiers are more likely to use a partial ski pole or a prosthetic to hold a ski pole" (LW6/8 alpine is not allowed a prosthesis), "The 2011/2012 alpine-skiing season factoring for LW6/8.1 was 0.9902 for Slalom, 0.995 for Giant Slalom, 0.9969 for Super-G and 0.998 for downhill, and for LW6/8.2 was 0.9926 for slalom, 1 for giant slalom, 1 for Super-G and 1 for downhill" (8.1 vs. 8.2 is not explained at all in the article; notice also the very inconsistent capitalizations here) and "At the 1998 Winter Paralympics, the women's LW1, LW3, LW4, LW5 and LW6 classes competed in one group" (according to [1] this isn't correct). This is only listing some faftual problems, and ignores typo's and content decisions like including irrelevant information such as "At the 2009 IPC Alpine World Championships, there were four women and nine men from this class in the standing downhill event.". Fram (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

In general, these articles need to focus on their actual subject, the sport classification. Sections like "Technique", with sentences like "After this, the skier learns how to get on and off a ski lift." or "The skier then learns how to do a straight run, and then is taught how to get on and off the chair lift." are really not suited for an article on a classification for highly skilled sporters competing at the Paralympics and other major championships and come across as patronizing and insulting. I would simply remove the technique section from all these articles. Similar problems occur in other sections, e.g. "Skiers in the LW10 class can injure themselves while skiing." No kidding... The "events" section seems like a random selection of events with some trivia added, and rather meaningless sentences like "This classification has been able to compete at different skiing competitions." Something like "At the 2009 IPC Alpine World Championships, there were no women and thirteen men from this class the sitting downhill event" adds no general information to the article about the classification (and has a typo in it). Many articles also mention a "7.4 km race" in biathlon. This should be 7.5km, which is a standard distance for this event. All these articles need a thorough, critical review, checked against the sources, and keeping in mind which bits of information are necessary, and which are superfluous. Fram (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I have now also delisted the final 3 articles in the GA review. In looking at the changes that were made at the start of this GA review to avoid the GA delisting and keep these articles listed as GAs, images were added to Para-alpine skiing classification. The result is that the first two images at Para-alpine skiing classification are two able-bodied skiers, which is insulting in general and certainly on a GA. Apart from that, many of the original problems still haven't been addressed (e.g. in the same article, we have capitalization issues like "They are tested based on medical classification by an Ophthalmologist." or "Downhill was open to the LW classification, the Super G had a blind event and an LW event, the Giant was open to blind and LW classes, and the slalom was open to the LW classification." Factual errors also remain: "There were 25 men and 18 women in the downhill standing classes": no, 28 men and 13 women; "25 men and 10 women in the downhill sitting classes": no, 28 men and 6 women... It's information that shouldn't even be included on these articles, but if it is there, it should be correct to be worthy of a GA label. (the same wrong numbers can also be found at another delisted article, Para-alpine skiing). Fram (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)