Talk:Para-alpine skiing classification/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 21:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this but the review likely won't start for at least another 48 hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * " Some classification systems are governed by bodies other than International Paralympic Committee Alpine Skiing for systems not used in international competition."Such as?
 * Special Olympics. added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "intellectual disabilities" Mental disabilities?
 * No, it is always referred to as "intellectual disabilities"."mentally retarded" has been deprecated for a generation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Political correctness eh?♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "The first classification systems for para-alpine skiing were developed in Scandinavia," Do we have a year/period for this?
 * 1960s. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Link Sit skiers and mono-ski
 * The two point to the same article, which duly informs the reader that they are not quite the same thing. Added a link to mono-ski. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Definition
 * Do LW1, LW2, LW3, LW4, LW5/7, LW6/8, and LW9 have articles? And the C and B class ones? Link them?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What does Locomotor Winter mean?
 * It's just an English word. Linked to the Wiktionary article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Remove excessive links to Amputation, Paraplegia and Visual acuity, just once will do.
 * Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Governance
 * International Paralympic Committee Alpine Skiing. Link?
 * Linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * " ISMWSF In 2003, ISMWSF merged with ISOD, and changed its name to the International Wheelchair and Amputee Sports Federation (IWAS) in 2004." Beginning of the sentence doesn't make sense.
 * Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Article seems to provide a pretty decent overview of this. However, several photographs might help liven it up a little, only if relevant of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Issues addressed, so article passes. Wizardman 04:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)