Talk:Compulsory figures/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Maplestrip (talk · contribs) 21:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I am currently working on a review of this article. I hope to have it done before I go to bed tonight, but just in case, I'll already start the process. Thus far, I believe this article will pass without much difficulty. It is very well-written and very in-depth! Allow me some time as I finish examining the article and collect my comments. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 21:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Sentences are the proper length for their complexity, paragraphs feel just the right length, and sections feel perfect. Only the technical descriptions of movements and shapes are hard to understand.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Article sourcing looks good and every line is cited.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article is properly focused and I believe I now have knowledge of the whole history of compulsory figures.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are of good quality, fitting, have proper captions, and have proper licensing.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

An absolutely fascinating article,. I have no choice but to pass it right away. Congratulations on the GA! That being said, I do have some comments that you may be interested in looking into if you want to improve the quality of the article even more. My biggest issue with the article is that I have difficulty understanding the technical description of the movements and shapes. All the other comments are more stray remarks than anything, but I hope you might find them useful:

Thanks so much,. I had no idea that the topic would be so interesting, even with my interest in figure skating. It was fun to learn about, and I'm glad you enjoyed it, too. I sincerely appreciate the feedback, since it's my intention to bring this article to FAC next.


 * The concept of the axes of a circle is unclear to me as someone with perhaps a lacking knowledge of geometry.
 * Probably because I lack knowledge in geometry as well. One of my challenges in editing figure skating articles is that I'm not a skater myself, so I'm depending upon my writing skills (as such) to describe, paraphrase, and summarize some of the concepts and execution of steps and movements.  It's my hope that as we go further along in the review process, that other editors with expertise in (for this case) geometry and skating will step up and advise me better ways to do that.  The challenge for this article specifically is that many of the sources (Brokaw's book, for example) were written by skaters for skaters, so much of the language is lost on me.  I have off-line math-nerd friends I should consult as well.


 * Shouldn't the following sentence: "A change of foot, which happened during the short time the skater transferred weight from one foot to the other," be changed to: "A change of foot, which is the action a skater takes when transferred weight from one foot to the other,?
 * This was my attempt to keep everything in past tense, since we're talking past practices. The source makes it unclear if the change of foot it's describing is true in general, when skaters in all disciplines and for all steps and movements execute a change of foot, or if it only happens during the execution of figures.  I'm sure it's obvious to skaters, but not to me.  I think that I need to ask for assistance/copyediting at the figure skating project before I bring this article to FAC.


 * A way to really make the subject of the article more understandable would be through video or animation. I would say that it may even be acceptable to insert a video under fair use. However, this is probably a rather difficult thing to figure out.
 * Hmm, what an interesting suggestion. I suspect that there are some free-use videos out there, from the early days of figure skating.  I'll see what I can find.


 * The article inconsistently uses "3-turn", "3 turn", and "three turn".
 * You're right, thanks for the catch. The sources aren't consistent, including the WP article about the 3 turn.  (We may need to change that.)  The last ISU regulation about figures and the Brokaw book both spell it out t-h-r-e-e, so that's what I will do.


 * The article states that turns of the paragraph double three "had to be done on a true edge with no scrapes on the ice". However, is this different from the other figures?
 * Not sure. It's how the source describes how it's done, though.


 * This line may date oddly: "the first half of the existence of figure skating as a sport." Perhaps "approximately the first 50 years of figure skating as a sport" would work better. We're already twenty years past the publication of the cited source.
 * Done.


 * Referring to Der Spiegel as "The Mirror" is new to me.
 * Fixed.


 * Maybe the contrast between compulsory figures and special figures could be described somewhere in the article.
 * I considered doing it, but decided against it because special figures already has an article. Yes, it needs work, which I'll get to when I'm at a good stopping point of what I'm doing now.


 * The line "Kestnbaum said that the special figures were unpleasant to watch, but that the patterns left on the ice were "aesthetically pleasing"." seems to belong to the special figures article rather than this one, no?
 * Yes you're right, of course. Removed sentence.

Again, thanks for the review (and pass), and for the picky comments. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Running this through the figure skating and mathematics projects seems like a very good idea, especially if you want to bring the article to FA. Regardless, I am happy with the changes you've made and glad you appreciated my comments. Good luck continuing improving figure skating-related articles :) ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)