Talk:Winter Paralympic Games/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead, "Those Games were the first Paralympics", and so forth, is "Games" supposed to be capitalized?

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Their are a lot of dead links.

   Check.

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not that much to do. If the above queries can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll check those dead links, they weren't dead a few weeks ago so something must have happened. The issue of capitalizing "Games" has come up in a couple of other articles. The Olympic Games article, which is FA, is one example. It was decided that when referring to the Games in this context it is a reference to a proper noun (Paralympic) Games. Consequently "Games" should be capitalized. It was accepted for the Olympic Games so I figured it would be acceptable here. If you feel differently I'll happily discuss it. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the dead links, apparently my source moved and killed those links. I've run the checklink tool and they all come back solid so I hope that addresses your concerns. Again if you'd like to discuss the "Games" capitalization issue I'll be happy to do so. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If it was decided to leave it capitalized, then it's not an issue here, I'm not gonna up against consensus. I was just wondering if it was supposed to be capitalized or not. Yup, the sources are solid, though there was a ref. whose url link I changed. Anyways, thank you to H1nkles for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yay thank you so much!!! H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)