Talk:Great Britain at the 2006 Winter Paralympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi all,

Interesting article, good structure, seems like the right size to be manageable into a nice article. However, as always, there's a few things to fix before promotion.

1. The prose and expression are poor, sometimes even confusing. For example, in the lead section,

"Great Britain competed at the 2006 Winter Paralympics in Turin, Italy."

X athletes represented Great Britain at the 2006 Winter Paralympics in Turin, Italy.

"The team was able to be made up of athletes from the whole United Kingdom; athletes from Northern Ireland, who elected to hold Irish citizenship under the pre-1999 article 2 of the Irish constitution, were eligible to represent either Great Britain or Ireland at the Paralympics.[2]"

Despite the team's name, athletes from Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom, but not Great Britain) were eligible to compete. Those who had elected to hold Irish citizenship under the former article two of the [Constitution of Ireland]].

"However no Northern Irish athletes took part in the Winter Paralympics until 2010 in Vancouver.[3]"

It should be specified here whether they did not compete with Ireland, GB, or neither.

"In order to be eligible to take part in the Games athletes had to have a disability that fell into one of the six Paralympics disability categories."

For the competition, athletes were organised into six categories according to their disability.

And so on. The text at present also includes many punctuation errors -- and this is just the lead section! The last line of the first paragraph is later contradicted in the disability paragraph.

The entire article needs to be copyedited for clarity, avoiding long sentences, removing some of the passive voice, and ambiguities.

2. A second immediate concern is the large number of red links. It is not clear that all those linked are notable in their own right.

3. Good layout and use of the summary style, but I would prefer to see the "Further Information" template than "Main Article" since the article linked do not provide more detailed information on Britain's involvement.

4. Good use of tables, but I don't think the medalists' names need be emboldened.

5. Images. The article has only one image, the Union Flag. This article would benefit from some illustration, complete with alt text of course.

Reviewer: Ktlynch (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes based on some of your suggestions but there are a few I disagree with. Red links (participating in the Paralympics makes an athlete notable), medallist's names in bold (emboldened by the way dosen't mean the same thing which caught me out in the past) and the opening ("Great Britain competed...") are part of the style guidelines for this category of article, introduced to get consistency across all articles of this type, and should remain as they are (see WP:OLYMOSNAT). I think the same is true with the info on UK vs GB. The current phrasing was settled upon after many arguments and debates and is used on all GB Olympic and Paralympic articles (2002, 2008, 2010, 2008 etc). Images would be nice but are very difficult to find; the Commons category has nothing and I'm unable to find any from other sources. Basement12 (T.C) 15:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]