Talk:6.0 system/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 21:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picking this one up. I have read through it a few times. This is the first article I've read where the history section starts at the end. After the first sentence, it is really very good indeed But the first sentence only says "The 6.0 system was used in figure skating until 2004". (But Footnote 12 says that the 6.0 system is still used in the US "for Compete USA events and many nonqualifying competitions, particularly at the pre-juvenile level and below.") Do we know who devised it? When it was first used? How it became adopted?

Thanks for picking it up, Hawkeye7. I will respond to this first concern. Ya know, there really isn't much out there about the history of the system, which is why the section here is so short. I have a theory about that, though, which is just a theory because I haven't seen anyone else make the same conclusion. They 6.0 system is at least 150 years old, and either its invention was never recorded or it was so accepted by the skating community, no one thought it was necessary to write down the story of its creation and creators. The early writers about figure skating don't bother with it, and there's nothing about it in any of the more modern writers like Hines and Kestnbaum. Most of the discussion about the 6.0 system is about its demise and the scoring scandal at the 2002 Olympics--yes, the end of its use. This being WP, of course, we can't make that kind of conclusions, so there's nothing about it in this article.

Fair enough. There's your PhD topic topic if you need one.

I have a friend who's an expert on the history of cricket and can tell me when a the lbw rule was introduced, so I just assumed that history books on figure skating would tell you all about it. I was asked to review a couple of sports articles, and the queue is months long. Then I saw this article there and reviewed it too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, no problemo. Ha, this would make a good PhD topic. Of course, it could be out there; the trick with obscure topics, I've discovered, is that it's often difficult to locate them. I need read more about figure skating so I can stumble upon it--again, something that happens when we research obscure topics. That's why this article shouldn't become an FA, at least not until we're able to do more research. I think it's broad enough for GA, though, which is one of the reasons I submitted it. Thanks, you're great. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure is good for a PhD topic. Agree that it is fine at GA "addresses the main aspects of the topic" but at FAC the criterion is " neglects no major facts or details" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the History of the Paralympics in Australia project, they located old roneo documents and newsletters, ran a vigorous oral history effort to track down every participant they could find, and even uncovered some film footage in an attic that was digitised and deposited in the National Film and Sound Archive. Then they got to up to Sydney 2000 and suddenly there was a thousand boxes of archived material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that sounds like such a cool project. I'm pretty much alone in writing about figure skating on Wikipedia, so doing that for this sport is above my pay grade. My goal, which I simply didn't have the time to acheive, was to have at least adequate articles about figure skating on WP before the 2022 Olympics. For example, the article about the IJS needs to be rewritten, too. I got pretty far in the goal, though, so things are much better now than when I picked this up back in 2018. Anyway, it's fun and a way I can contribute to the sport in a significant way. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Consider merging the two sentences of Note 1 into one.
It's two sentences because it's talking about two different elements: the spin and the flying spin. But I reworded the second sentence to make it clearer; hopefully, it's adequate.
Is it Midori Ito or Ido?
Depends upon the source, but his WP bio spells her name with a "t", so I fixed the typo. Thanks for the catch.
Irena Rodina or Irena Rodnina? (Has a look: Роднина - there's an "н" ("n") in there.)
That was a true typo; again, thanks for the catch.
back in high school people said we' never use Russian again. But here were are. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Judges awarded two marks... Skaters were awarded two marks" consider combining the sentences
Done. Yikes, I'm so bad at writing leads.
Given that we only have two images, I don't think we really need a gallery.
Okay. What I'd really like to do is to create a gallery of all four skaters' head shots, but there aren't enough in Commons.
"It also did not include the judges' opinions or a measure of how much they liked a skater's performance, music, costume, or hairstyle." And you say it as though that was a bad thing. I mean, do the athletes get to choose their own music, design their own costume or do their own hair?
Do I? Dude, are you insinuating that I'm not being neutral enough? ;) Seriously, I respectfully disagree. It supports the previous statement about presentation marks not being about artistry. And I don't think this article is the place to discuss how and why skaters get to choose their music, costumes, and hairstyles. I suppose I could cut the line for clarity's sake; if you want me to, I will. Will get to the rest of comments later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No need to cut. Ping me when you are ready. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7, I believe that I've sufficiently addressed your comments, so pinging you now as per your request. I also did another proofread and copyedit, which has helped with the prose awkwardness. Please let me know how I can improve the prose and/or anything else you want me to do. Thanks for the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
A little awkward in places

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
The Notes section requires a reference.

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Tagged with valid licences. Consider adding a personality rights template.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Pretty good.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.