# Talk:Turkey at the 2014 Winter Paralympics

This review is transcluded from Talk:Turkey at the 2014 Winter Paralympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 15:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Will start review soon.--Dom497 (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


### Lead
"sent a delegation to compete" - In the previous review I did you mentioned that you dislike the "competed" structure. Can you explain why?
Because we are talking about a delegation, not just the competition. Courcelles (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Ok I'm just a little confused why you changed it in the review I did yesterday?--Dom497 (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
It felt like you were insisting, the way you edited your comments, and it wasn't a hill worth fighting over. Courcelles (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: Damn, I have a bad tendency of typing like that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Dom497 (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I'm always questioning my own writing, and I tend to think my own writing sucks... Courcelles (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Mention all the athletes names in the lead.
Done. Courcelles (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


### Background
"Turkey has sent a delegation to most Winter Olympics since the 1936 edition, skipping only 1952, 1972, and 1980 between 1936 and their participation in the 2014 Winter Olympics held a few weeks prior in Sochi" - Lots going on in this sentence. The second half doesn't seem to make sense. Needs a re-word.
I'm not understanding this one?  Reworded, though it made sense to me. Courcelles (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: The sentence still doesn't flow well when I read it. How about something like, "Turkey has sent a delegation to most Winter Olympics between the 1936 and 2014 editions, skipping only 1952, 1972, and 1980".--Dom497 (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Try it now, Dom497. Courcelles (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


### Disability classification
I'm a bit stuck on this section. It seems like it is something that is out-of-scope for this article and should really be included as a "See Also" or linked somewhere in the text of the article. The reason being is that all the info in this section is generic and does not talk about Turkey specifically. Where I am stuck is that pretty much all of the current Paralympic Good Articles have this exact section...and they all seem like they've been copied pasted. The amount of duplication (not necessarily word for word but in the sense that all the articles are discussing the exact same thing just worded differently) worries me to the point where I think a wider discussion needs to be started with a WikiProject to determine how to proceed (unless a discussion already occurred and concluded that this section should always be included).
Well, it serves as an introduction for the codes later on, and for the idea that different athletes compete in different competitions even for the exact same discipline.  And, well, at this point, every X at the Y Paralympics has one that I know.  It aids in understanding of the concept of the Paralympics without having to leave the page. Courcelles (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
As a reader, if you don't know the classifications, there should be link in the text to go to an article that they can read specifically about the classifications. If every single article has the same section, that is a red flag to me since it signals that the content is generic and not within scope. Maybe I'm totally wrong but I have started a discussion here.--Dom497 (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I"ll watch that discussion, and maybe even participate.  If consensus goes one way I'll take it out, but that's going to take a while -- WT:OLY is kind of deliberate.  Not seeing that this should hold up the promotion of this article, though, I promise to take it out later if needed. Courcelles (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh I have no intention of holding up this review till consensus is reached! I'll most likely let this go given the current GA's but I would like to leave this article on hold for a couple days and if nothing happens on the discussion than I'll just move on. :) --Dom497 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Dom497: Nothing seems ot be happening on WT:OLY, which actually surprises me, I'd have expected SOMEONE other than us two to have commented by now! 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


### Alpine skiing
"On 13 March 2014, he competed in the slalom competition, he recorded a time of two minutes and thirty-four seconds, which was the slowest time in the field of 35 athletes who finished both legs of the race" - For the times, just use actually numbers since its easier to read. Also, reword to something like, "On 13 March 2014, he competed in the slalom competition, and recorded a time of 2 minutes and 34 seconds, which was the slowest time in the field of 35 athletes who finished both legs of the race".
DOne. Courcelles (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Continuing on with the previous sentence mentioned above, "finished both legs of the race", can another word be used other than "legs". I feel like some readers could be confused by that word given that the athletics disability had to do with his legs.
How about "runs" instead? Courcelles (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep that works. :) --Dom497 (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
"The race was won by Alexey Bugaev in a time of one minute thirty-eight seconds" - Out-of-scope
Removed. Courcelles (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
"he finished both legs in a time of three minutes and nine seconds" - Same comment as two and three bullet points above
DOne. Courcelles (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
"good for 28th place out of 29 competitors who finished the race" --> "placing 28th out of 29 competitors who finished the race"
DOne. Courcelles (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
"The race was won by Vincent Gauthier-Manuel in a time of two minutes and twenty-five seconds" - Out-of-scope
Gone. Courcelles (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
"He is classified as LW11,[13], defined by the IPC as "skiers have a leg impairment and fair trunk control, which enables them to balance even when moving sideways."; as an LW11, he competes while in a sitting position.[10]" - Structure this sentence in the same fashion as the sentence for Mehmet Çekiç.
Done. Courcelles (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
"The winning time for the event was two minutes, thirty-two seconds" - Out-of-scope
Gone. Courcelles (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Overall good work! On hold pending the comments above.--Dom497 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dom497:, think I've addressed everything. Courcelles (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Courcelles: After some thinking the stuff I said was out-of-scope (in relation to who won the events) is actually in scope. You can add them back. Sorry for making you remove them at first. :) --Dom497 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking about them on my drive home from work, and came to the same conclusion; they offer a perspective in how fast or slow the competitor discussed here really was.  In some of these the answer is "finished way back, but not overly slow". Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm just going to pass this since it doesn't look like the discussion at the WikiProject will start or happen anytime soon.--Dom497 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)