Talk:United States at the 2008 Summer Paralympics/GA1

GA Review

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

GA Review

I will be happy to review this article for GA status. H1nkles (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA/FA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA/FA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article. H1nkles (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

GA checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

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

   Text is clear, not redundant, and well-written. Could be more though.

   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:

   Cites have been randomely checked, links are good, and references are accurately cited.

   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:

   POV is not an issue in this article.

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:

   One image could be found that meets fair use standards, more in the future would improve article.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

• I recommend wikilinking United States to the USOC rather than to the country, it is more specific to the topic of the article.

• Firstly, I'd like to thank you for taking on this review. I'd like to do this, but all of the articles under Template:NPCin2008SummerParalympics all link to the country article. --Jh12 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Very well, I'm all for consistency w/in the article and w/ it's various counterparts. H1nkles (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• When a paragraph has numbers written numerically and alphabetically (4 and four), I usually encourage editors to pick one style or the other. It's ticky tack but makes for a more professional appearance. In the case of the Lead I would recommend writing out the letters numberically.

• The numbers issue is one I've been debating for awhile. I was always taught to write out numbers only when they are less than ten like at Wikipedia:Mosnum#Numbers_as_figures_or_words. When using figures that are comparable (medal totals), I tried to use all text or all numerals, unless the number was greater than 9 and began a sentence. I think you might be right that it's easier to have just numerals and I'll give it a go. --Jh12 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• You present a cogent, well thought out response, I'll trust your corrections as you see fit. H1nkles (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Overall the Lead is good, succinct, well-written and provides a summary of the article. It could be expanded to include media coverage as that has a paragraph in the article but isn't mentioned here. Otherwise good lead and table to the right. H1nkles (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I added a sentence to the lead about the media coverage. Let me know if it still needs more or tweaking. Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good. H1nkles (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Disability Classifications

• Why is les autres not wikilinked and in bold?

• It doesn't have a page on Wikipedia like the other disability classifications. I'll remove the bold. --Jh12 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I recommend placing this statement - "any physical disability that does not fall strictly under one of the other categories, for example dwarfism or multiple sclerosis" in parentheses for clarity.

• I tried to put all of the clarifications in parentheses to make the five categories stand out.

• Looks good. H1nkles (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• This section is very important for the reader to understand in order to better grasp the codes that are included throughout the remainder of the article. I understand that this section is copied verbatim from the Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Paralympics article. An example of what the codes next to the events mean would (in my opinion) really help the reader to grasp how the events are broken down. The Great Britain article has passed GA so I won't fail this article if you decide not to include an example, but I do feel it would help the novice reader. H1nkles (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that such tables would be great, but it might mean adding clarification for every event to all of the nation articles (e.g. Athletics_at_the_2008_Summer_Paralympics#Classification). Perhaps if text was added to point readers to the event articles for classification breakdowns? --Jh12 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• This is what I was thinking, not adding for every event but more of a general example to help the reader better understand the general principals behind the coding. H1nkles (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Archery

This section is fine. No problems. H1nkles (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Track and Field athletics

• The section name is a bit cumbersome, perhaps remove "athletics" as this is primarily the European term for Track and Field and since this is an article on the U.S. team it should just have "Track and Field".

• I agree that it's always called "track and field team" and "track and field trials", but I wanted international readers to be able to understand that it's the same thing as "athletics". How about "Track and field (athletics)"? --Jh12 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• that would be fine. H1nkles (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• You mention Scott Winkler in your lead as being injured in Iraq. I recommend that you expand a little bit here on how he was injured. What was the accident, where and when did it occur? Nothing too detailed, perhaps one or two sentences at most. As it currently stands the information you give here is a duplicate of the information in the lead. If you choose not to expand it then you should probably remove reference to him here to avoid duplication.

• I'll try to expand it. --Jh12 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I recommend using the term "each won at least three medals" rather than "each took three or more medals." The way it is currently written is awkward.

• Will change the sentence. --Jh12 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I notice that Jim Bob Bizzell placed second in two events and yet set world records in both of his events. Is this due to the class he was in? It is confusing on a cursory look at the tables to see a time listed as a world record yet the person only placed second. I understand that this is due to the unique nature of Paralympic events. Perhaps an additional explanation in the "Disability Categories" section would help to clarify this. Just a suggestion. H1nkles (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it's because of the class. For example at Athletics at the 2008 Summer Paralympics - Men's 200 metres T44, Pistorius actually competed under T43, while Bizzell competed as T44. The same places happened at the 400m race [1]. What I don't understand myself is why the event is called T44 when it really seems to be T43-T44. --Jh12 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Boccia

Section is fine.

Regarding Cycling

• I recommend using a term other than "nominees", perhaps "qualifiers" since it appears as though they qualified for their spots rather than be nominated.

• I think I'll change it to "The initial members..." because nominees is the actual term U.S. Paralympics used --Jh12 (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Makes sense, keep in mind that you change the term in later sections to "qualifiers". H1nkles (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• The selection process for the various teams is interesting, is there a way to include it in the other sections as well? This would be a good improvement to move this article to FA consideration. H1nkles (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Equestrian

This section is fine.

Regarding Goalball

This section is fine.

Regarding Judo

This section is fine.

Regarding Powerlifting

• My only thought here would be to include a brief explanation of why Stack's lifts were invalid. Otherwise the section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have expanded the section to include more information on Stack's performance. --Jh12 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Rowing

• Again as with cycling, I recommending using a word other than "nominated" since they actually had to qualify for the spot.

• I believe USA cycling nominated the team to U.S. Paralympics, which then approves the selections. --Jh12 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• You have already wikilinked multiple sclerosis, recommend dewikilinking here.

• Will delink.

• I'm unclear on the FA and FB determinations. Perhaps I'm a little thick but I'm not quite sure what Final A and Final B means. Also you say Final A (medal) yet Ronald Harvey got 2FA and yet did not receive a medal. Perhaps a little explanation would help. H1nkles (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Harvey's second place performance in the single sculls Repechage qualified him for the FA medal race, where he finished in fifth place. The FB final is a non-medal race for those that didn't get into the medal race. --Jh12 (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• It make sense that FA would be a medal race and FB a non-medal race, hence adding the term "Medal" in parenthesis. Thank you for the explanation. H1nkles (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Sailing

• You list the event location for this event (Qingdao International Sailing Centre), but you do not do so with the other events. If the information on the other event locations is available it would be good for consistency to note this. I won't hold up GA status but to move the article forward this would be a good place to enhance it. Otherwise the section is fine.

Regarding Shooting

This section is fine.

Regarding Swimming

• Good overview of the athletes and how they were selected, along with the results.
• Regarding Dave Denniston, are you sure it was the 200-yard breast stroke? I thought the NCAA swimming events were in meters. Your link says yards, this link is the results of all the Auburn swimmers at the NCAA championships, http://auburntigers.cstv.com/sports/c-swim/stats/1999-2000/03252000sd.html it classifies all the events in meters, so you may want to change that.

• It seems to be yards according to http://auburntigers.cstv.com/sports/c-swim/spec-rel/aub_mens_ncaa_championships.html and http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/10089.asp?q=Dave%20Denniston%20to%20Write%20for%20SwimmingWorldMagazine.com I had no idea that was the case for NCAA either, but the reference I used http://usparalympics.org/news/article/2288 also says yards. --Jh12 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly I would be shocked if the NCAA actually measured their races in yards rather than meters. One thing I really try to focus on as an editor/reviewer is the big picture rather than harping on the seemingly insignificant details (like yards or meters) that so many get worked around the axel on. Since you have found sources to support yards rather than meters, I'll leave the issue in order to focus on the forest rather than the trees. H1nkles (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Table Tennis

This section is fine.

Regarding Volleyball

This section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wheelchair basketball

• You should wikilink the Great Britain team to their 2008 Paralympics article, same can be said for Germany - if it exists.

• I wikilinked the two articles. --Jh12 (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Wheelchair fencing

This section is fine.

Regarding Wheelchair rugby

This section is fine

Regarding Wheelchair tennis

• For consistency you should wikilink the names of the competitors in the write up. You do so in the other sections. Another option is not to wikilink them at all since they are wikilinked in the tables, that would require going through and dewikinlinking all the athletes in the write ups of every section. I'll leave that up to you.

• I added wikilinks for the names for consistency. --Jh12 (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• You add a lot more detail to this write up, namely who the coaches were and who the personal care assistant was. Any rationale for doing that here but not in the other team sports?

• I always liked the write ups, because they provide a lot of information that isn't in the tables. But the problem has been the massive size of the article (even worse on United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics and a reason why I've left that article on hold). As a result, I've been shifting away from more detailed write-ups and instead highlighting the bare minimum. --Jh12 (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• As I stated later in the over-all comments, a more detailed write up of each section will really help the article to advance to FA status, and will also help to balance out all the tables. That said I do understand the length of the article. H1nkles (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• A bit ticky tack but this final statement, "...with Wagner winning the match and the medal" is redundant, if he won the match, he won the medal. Instead trim it to "...with Wagner prevailing." The reader will infer correctly that he won the medal, and the results are in the table below if there is any doubt. H1nkles (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Good catch: I've changed the sentence. --Jh12 (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Media Coverage

• Any word on the ratings for the broadcasts? Especially the NBC broadcast on Oct. 18? H1nkles (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm looking, but looks to be more difficult than I would have hoped. --Jh12 (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Understandable. H1nkles (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Overarching comments regarding the article

• I had the honor of performing the GA Review on the Great Britain at the 2008 Paralympics article, I am pleased to see the uniformity in the layout and tables.
• There are no images. Per WP:WIAGA it is suggested that the article have at least one image if possible. Please attempt to find a photo if one exists that meets WP:FU criteria.
• Your sources appear varied and credible, the source from MTV may be a little pop-culturish but I won't knock it for GAC.
• You provide snipets of some compelling stories of athletes that would make great bio articles.
• The size of the article is a concern, which I mentioned in the Great Britain article as well. You I'm sure are familiar with this issue and we all know it is due to the prodigious amount of tables. If something can be done to change that I am all for it, otherwise keep it as is, the tables by the way are beautiful.
• Regarding the tables - and I mentioned this also in the review of the Great Britain article - this article is very table reliant. You will need to enhance the heading information in each section in order to move it to the higher echelons of Wikipedia articles. It is overweighted to the tables and this may be due to a lack of information to add beyond the results. If that is the case then so be it. Otherwise, with some flushing out of the information, the article could become FA at some point.
• A nice addition to the article would be a description (with photo if available) of the opening and closing ceremonies, this is incorporated into the 2008 Summer Paralympics article, but perhaps a description of the US delegation would keep it focused on the subject of this article. Just a suggestion for future reference.
• Overall the article is well written. I will give you some time to reflect on my comments, make changes you see fit, and then I will make my final GA determination. Thank you for the chance to review your article. H1nkles (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Final review

Unless there is objection I will make my final read-through of the article and GA determination on 1/9/09. If there is more work to do and this is not enough time then please advise me and I will put it off until next week. Thank you. H1nkles (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's good for final review, although I could definitely use another eye in regards to the Disability classifications section. I did manage to find one free image of Karissa Whitsell and Mackenzie Woodring for the Cycling section. As for more images in general including the opening ceremony, there are a handful of promising images on Flickr, but they are all copyrighted and would have to have their copyrights released by request. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the ratings information, despite the fact that Nielson ratings have been mentioned for the Summer Olympics. It should have been along the lines of Nielsen Top Twenty Shows by viewers for the week ending 10/19/08, but NBC's only listing was for Sunday Night Football. As for the expansion of the summary sections (including more about the selection process, athletes, and performances), I'm going to have to hold off for the moment partly due to size and time concerns, but I'll be considering that option. Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok I've completed my review. I will pass the article to GA status, congratulations. Your Disability classifications section is much improved. I noticed the addition of more information on Winkler's Iraq war injury, well done. The image is good, of course more would be better but it is something and it adds to the article. The main issue with this article and it's British counterpart is its reliance on tables. It really should have more text to balance it all out. That said I know that the information available for the Paralympics is not as prodigious as it is for the Olympics and you do the best with what you have. It certainly is vastly improved from when I looked at it while I was reviewing the Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Paralympics. Keep up the good work on a very important and oft-overlooked segment of the Olympic Movement. H1nkles (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)