Talk:Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Back in 30 minutes-an hour with a review. --Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Shortish article, but no problems due to only two athletes having competed.

"The team was able to made up of athletes" That sentence needs some repair- a word is missing or the grammar needs tweaking.

The Lede contains quite a bit of unique information. It should summarise what is found below, not contain the entire discussion of a topic- both NI and funding are not mentioned again.

LW12/LW10. What do they mean? You explain that the LW means they compete sitting down, but what's the difference for the numbers?

"One reason for this is that whilst funding for the two athletes was provided by the British Paralympic Association it totalled" Needs some kind of separator between Association and it. (comma or semicolon)

Ref 6 has an author given; please refactor the template to add it.

Ref 9; capitalise the month.

Ref 13; spell out IPC for consistency with Ref 4

Nothing here that couldn't be fixed with half-an-hour's work. Courcelles (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've fixed most of the things you've brought up. To me the grammar in your first point seems fine when taken with the rest of the sentence, not sure what you think needs adding there? The unique info in the lead, whilst not ideal, is there for a reason; the NI issue is something I'd rather not include at all but something that has been required to stop various nationalistic arguments about the use of Great Britain as opposed to United Kingdom, a long running argument on Olympic/Paralympic articles. As such a brief mention in the lead, where the team's name is first brought up, is all it deserves. I've illustrated the LW issue with one of the less complicated examples as the whole explaination (at the source added) would be over the top for this article - Basement12 (T.C) 20:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked the sentence I mentioned- I thought it needed something like a "be", which is what I added, "able to made up" just didn't sound right. Courcelles (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ha, sorry I was reading what I thought was there not what actually was; obviously you're entirely right with the addition Basement12 (T.C) 20:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright. A discussion between UK, Ireland, and Great Britain is way, way out of scope for this article, so I can live with mentioning the background and then getting on with the actual topic. So, passed. Courcelles (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)