Talk:LW3 (classification)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 00:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

One item (just an initial impression at this point) is that (possibly due to editor's higher level of expertise in the subject) it seems to presume knowledge of some things without saying them. Being a dummy on this topic might qualify me to spot and fix a few. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article has no images. Would it be feasible (vs. very difficult) to add an image? North8000 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've done our best to find images for the articles, even sent Wiki photographers to events. We haven't given up, but as of now, I don't have any photographs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. So this article fulfills that requirement, as written (with its qualifier). North8000 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is one area (IMHO important, considering the nature of the topic) which is either not covered or not clearly covered. I'm assuming that this is a particular standard the contents of which is authored and controlled by some organization. And I assume that it is implemented by bodies which run for competitions (by "implement" I mean make the decisions regarding which participant is in which class). This article really does not say or make clear who authors/controls it and who implements it. The closest thing I found is "classification is handled by"....; type wording. "Classification" is not clear, it could mean either of those two things. Could you clarify this in the article? (and if there is more than one version of the standard, which body authors/controls the contents of each of those. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was the main thing that I note. The article looks pretty good. North8000 (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the definition section it says that The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) explicitly defined this classification and A national federation such as Alpine Canada handles classification for domestic competitions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The item that I noted is on all 5 articles. I figure we can start with LW3 (this one) as an example location to sort it out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As explanation /context, I'm a dummy on this topic (which can be a good thing), sort of a logician on what is and isn't said, not a dummy overall, and a bit of a stickler on having empathy for the reader. Conversely, being expert on the topic (which I'm guessing that you are) can make it harder to see these things. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{outdent}}What I see in the definitions section is 4 instances of somebody defining this standard, and in those the "somebody" being 3 different organizations. I order to try to be helpful on this perhaps I'll just ask some questions so that I can understand this myself.

1 Is LW3

a single written standard? And if so, who is the governing body regarding the contents of the standard?
multiple written standards? And if so, are there names/designations to tell them apart, and for each who is the governing body regarding the contents of the standard?
Something other than a written standard?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is classification and there is governance. Classification is the written standard, which is laid down at the international level by the IPC. The standard can be found in footnote 4, the IPC Alpine Skiing Classification Handbook. Governance means running the sport, setting up competitions and the like. In many sports, the two are handled by different bodies, but, as it happens, para-Alpine and para-Nordic skiing at the international level are also governed by the IPC. Each country has its own national organisation, which is free to vary the rules for national competitions.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I checked (currently footnote 4) and the link is dead. Do you have the link to that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the IPC updated the handbook on 5 December 2012, two months after the article was nominated for GA. The original is archived here. I've updated the link to point to the archived version. The new version is here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hear ya. Again, I'm trying to help reduce the backlog. BTW I'll only be 1/2 on Wiki for the next couple days. North8000 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, but I'll get cracking on the dead links on the weekend. Thanks for reviewing. It is much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LW3 is done; all links are alive again. I'll be doing all the others over the next few days. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that updated link. I read all 49 pages of the IPC document. With that completed, I think that I can see that my concerns arose from that fact that the article has confused thing a bit via imprecise use of terminology. Here's how I see it, what do you think?: What the articles have been referring to as a "classification" is what the IPC actually considers to be a "Sport Class". And the IPC defines "classification" as the process by which the "classifier"/ governing body for a particular event determines which Sport Class each individual athlete is classified into. Also there are two places where a the article says that a national-level committee has defined a Sport Class ("classification") a particular way. Them "defining" this would conflict with the concept laid out by the IPC umbrella organization. So I looked at the references for those two "national definition" statements. The first went to a sort of press kit search page that went so many places that it went nowhere specific. The other went to a page where I believe that they were just giving a brief paraphrasing of the IPC standard, not defining their own standard. What I am proposing is that I would do a few changes to the article to clarify / align it with the above. This would be BRD as an editor, not as a reviewer, so fee free to revert if you disagree. IMHO those changes would resolve things.

OK, done. What do you think? OK with / no objections from the main editors? North8000 (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume that there were no objections. This resolves the only point I considered to be open in the review. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts / suggestion regarding titles

But I would still have a suggestion regarding the titles. A couple of issues there are:

between parallel articles, they are inconsistent. Some say "(classification)" and some don't.
- That's because LW1 through LW4 were homesteaded by the Lethal Weapon movie series, so disambiguation was required. God willing, there will never be a Lethal Weapon 5. It's obviously easier for people to find the articles if there is no disambiguation, per WP:NATURAL. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear what it iw until you start reading the article
- Unclear what you mean here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While "classification" is a good word by the common meaning of the term, it does conflict with the IPC terms, where "classification" is the process at an event, and e.g. LW3 is a "Sport Class"
- I think there was consensus on the matter when the articles were created. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion which would kill all of the birds with one stone would be to title them e.g. LW3 (International Paralympic Committee Sport Class). In any event, if you think that this is a good idea, I think that to avoid making things complicated, it would be better to wait until after the GA review process....the titles would not prevent a successful review. I could help with the title change at the GA list page if you decided to make the change and would like that help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would go against WP:NATURAL which calls for the smallest disambiguation. But yeah, renaming during GA reviews really confuses the bot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was just one idea at the end of some thoughts. Your note addresses the disambig aspects, I was more focused on saying a bit more on what the topic is. The current situation is no problem with respect to GA, and so I'll not say anything more about titles. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Passes this criteria. Article is stable. North8000 (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this requirement. Has no images. Editors made a significant effort and so far have been been able to come up with one. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to pass

It looks like there were no objections to the tweak I did which resolved one of the two open questions. I think that the discussion has also resolved meeting the "images" requirement as it is worded, despite not having any images. IMO this is ready to pass. Since this article/review is the example/template/centralized discussions for all ~~five~~ seven of the LW articles which I'm currently reviewing, I'll leave this open for now while we complete the others. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The others in the group besides this (LW3 (classification) are:

LW2 (classification), LW9,LW11,LW12
- There is also LW4 (classification) and LW6/8, which were overlooked in the initial nomination. If you could handle them too, it would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll take those too unless they are taken. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took them. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the list and where we're at:

LW2 (classification) Passed North8000 (talk)(March 14, 2013)
LW3 (classification) Passed North8000 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LW4 (classification) Passed. North8000 (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LW6/8 See article. Status no longer listed here in this closed review. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LW9 Passed North8000 (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LW11 Passed North8000 (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LW12 Passed North8000 (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North8000 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(see previous note on why I kept this open) With the common topics already discussed, and only one article (LW6/8) really open, I don't think we need LW 3 as a central point any more and so I'm going to finish it and pass it. North8000 (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations! North8000 (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Reviewer[reply]