Talk:Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In the lead, the reader might feel "cheated" by the prose saying "all three disciplines", and then not mentioning what they are.
The section "Team selection and funding" mentions nothing about team selection. How where the athletes actually selected?
Use a multiplication sign (×) rather than the letter x when writing relay distances. (I've fixed this as it arguably is beyond the GA criteria)
There is a stray } in ref 13
Ref 12 and 13 need archive dates. Normally when referencing an archive, provide the dead link in the url field, and provide the archive in the 'archiveurl' field.
To me, the formatting of the publisher field is rather odd, with the use of an external link instead of a wikilink. For instance in ref 1, the URL goes to the necessary place, while I would have said it was more encyclopedic to then provide a link to 'International Paralympic Committee' instead of their main web page, which can easilly be reached via the reference's URL.
Similarly, it seems unnecessary to say "The Official website of the British Paralympic Association" when it could just state "British Paralympic Association", as that could only be understood as that it came from the official source.

Overall the article is encyclopedic and well-written. There are no images, but I cannot find anything appropriate on the Commons, so it is acceptable. Placing article on hold. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've made the changes to the lead and references as suggested - I've wikilinked each source the first time it appears in a reference, I assume repeating the links isn't needed? On the "Team selection and funding" section the team selection part is the mention of athletes from the whole UK being eligible (a contensious issue covered in depth here). As for how athletes were chosen I have no idea and couldn't find any info. For recent Games it is often the nation that earns a place and can then allocate it to anyone who has achieved the qualifying standard but I suspect at this time there was still little competition for places - Basement12 (T.C) 10:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my late replay. I have taken some time to read in detail the previous discussions about if the article meets the GA criteria, and I cannot establish specifically why the article does not have a wide enough coverage. There is however one small issue: the article provides an external link to IPC; for such a remove topic provides little value. A link to a site about the 1992 Games or even British team might be acceptable, but as far as I can see, the site does not provide more information about GB at the 1992 Games than is provided in this article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IPC website, via the "Results" (link on the right of the page under the calendar), contains the database of all full results for all events at all Paralympic Games (reference 1 comes from this website). An example of how it could be deemed useful is that searching for an event gives results (timings etc) for the athletes the British team competed against (which in an ideal world would be in all the redlinked WP articles). For now i'll change the link from the website frontpage to a link directly for the results database but I can remove it entirely if you think that is the better option - Basement12 (T.C) 20:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will pass the article. The new link is better, and although I would not have added it, I will let it be up to your judgment. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]