Talk:Mechanics of Oscar Pistorius's running blades/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Meetthefeebles (talk · contribs) 15:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll review. Give me a day or so to read through and leave comments... Meetthefeebles (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Image check: infobox image is fine, the flex foot image is fine, the Iceland image is fine, the Olympic image is from flickr and is fine, the Clayton image is fine– all good!
• Disambiguation links: Tool is dead, I'll check a little later.
• External links: the link in ref.9 is dead–is there an alternative we could use?
• Quickfail issues: no tags that I can see, references throughout, will check for copyright issues as we go, don't think this can be considered an 'ongoing issue', a couple of minor disputes in the history but these are hardly amount to an edit-war...

Okay, I'll have a read through and add comments as I go:

• I think amputations should be blue linked.
• Small grammar nitpick: suggest adding a comma between 'double' and 'below' in the opening sentence.
• In the context of this article, I think athletics should also be blue linked. As should 200m and 400m. And also prosthetistand carbon fibre. Pistorius is a famous chap even among non-athletics fans and these might assist those readers. Otherwise, the lede is fine.
• Suggest blue linking strength to weight ratio.
• what is meant by '500 fps'? An non expert (like me) has no idea what that means. Suggest un-abbreviating?
• Can we blue link metabolic and calorimetry? I would also link torque.

I've read this one fairly carefully and could not find much to comment upon at all. The prose used is very good and the article reads very nicely, is well illustrated and provides a solid extrapolation of an interesting sporting debate.

• Reference checks
• I checked ref.8, ref.10, ref.13, ref.18, ref.24 and ref.28 and they were all fine. The citation template is used to provide consistency.

Other than a few issues as outlined above, there is very little required of this one, so I'll pop on hold and allow the nominator to consider the changes suggested.

I added the suggested blue links and found another location for the bad reference. I've also linked fps, although I didn't expand it. In the interest of simplified prose, I disagree about the comma. Pkeets (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Overall comments

---

A comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I've assessed this article against the requirements of WP:WIAGA and, in the light of improvements carried out, I'm awarding GA-status. Congratulations! Please consider reviewing an article against the GA criteria. Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it sufficiently noteworthy for there to be an article on Mr Pistorius' blades? That is like having an article on Dolly Barton's breasts! Surely it would be more appropriate for the article to be on running or athletic blades generally. The majority of the content could remain unchanged.203.184.41.226 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)