Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/The Whistler Sliding Centre/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because even though it is GA, it was not promoted as an FA. I would like to see that needs to be done with this to get it to FA. This could involve anything from minor editing to serious rewrites. Any help on this would be appreciative.

Thanks, Chris (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jappalang

Lead

  • It feels like the first sentence is having too much physical location squeezed in. The second is particularly long. Perhaps this can be restructured by taking out the Fitzsimmons Creek from the first sentence, combining it with the front few clauses of the second to form a new second sentence (describing the Centre's location in the Creek).
    • - Done. Chris (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Best check the grammar, the creek is a mountain?
        • The creek is adjacent to the mountain. Fixed. Chris (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Umm, I do not see the fix... Regardless, I suggest changing
          "Located on the lowermost slopes of Blackcomb Mountain near Fitzsimmons Creek, one of two ski mountains forming the Whistler Blackcomb resort, this venue hosted the bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton (individual sport where you slide down the track head first) competitions for the 2010 Winter Olympics, which was co-hosted by Vancouver and the Resort Municipality of Whistler."
          to
          "The centre is part of the Whistler Blackcomb resort, which comprises two ski mountains separated by Fitzsimmons Creek. Located on the lowermost slope of the northern mountain (Blackcomb Mountain), Whistler Sliding Centre hosted the bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton (an individual sport in which the racer slides down the track head first) competitions for the 2010 Winter Olympics."
          We should not be addressing the reader ("you") and I think the co-hosting of the Olympics is superfluous to this article (which should be focusing on the centre). Jappalang (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and skeleton with the top speed for all World Cup events set by German luger ..."
    I do not think the "with" construct is gramatically sound here... Replace it with a semi-colon or period and cast the information after it as a full sentence. See below for another issue with unexplained "skeleton".
  • "Safety concerns have affected the track design for the Russian National Sliding Centre that will be used for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi."
    So how is this related to Whistler? See also below.
  • "... track design for the Russian National Sliding Centre that will be used for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. A 20-page report was released by the FIL to ... on 19 April 2010. Constructed on part of First Nations spiritual grounds, the track ... while the refrigeration plant earned Canada's ..."
    All those sentences pertain to the Russian Centre?

Awarding and construction (2004–07)

  • "On 15 November 2004, it was announced that Stantec Architecture Limited, which designed the 2002 Winter Olympic bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton track in Park City, Utah in the United States, would provide detail design and site master plan of the track based on track design of German designer Udo Gurgel of IBG in Leipzig, Germany."
    A long sentence, perhaps, best broken down into shorter ones.
  • "During its building peak in the summer of 2006, more than 500 workers were involved both at the ..."
    "Building peak"? I believe "peak of construction activities" is a more common term. Furthermore, "involved" in or with what? The entire sentence could be recast to use active phrasing.

General, no longer going into specific sections or details

  • I am fairly certain that when we address a city and its state, the notation is "... he visited city, state, in 1993." Note the comma after the larger location (state or country). It is missing in several sentences in this article.
  • Does "2010 Winter Olympics" need this much information on the competitions? I can understand the issues that surround Kumaritashvili, but the races? Would that not be better covered in the Olympics article instead?
    • Luge and skeleton covered on this. Reviewing bobsleigh now and will cut this section down accordingly. Chris (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bobsleigh has also been cut down. Chris (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not think it has been cut down enough. To me, it still reads as if every effort has been expended to cram all events into this section (why should disqualifications "for violating the total weight rule" matter for this track). I think it might be better to structure and summarize this section in a way that speaks of how many crashes there were, why they were due to the track, and what effects the crashes had on the track. Jappalang (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Skeleton disqualifications removed per request. Bobsleigh further analyzed and weight disqualifications removed per request. Other parts of the section reviewed and tweaked. Chris (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Strămăturaru's sister Raluca, who had completed her run before her sister and made it through without issue, rushed to the end of the observation deck to know about her condition as the public address announcer directed medical personnel to the scene. Violeta later withdrew before the event while Raluca finished 21st.": Does Raluca's actions warrant this much detail when the article's subject about the track and not the event? Jappalang (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If abbreviations are only used once (when the full name is mentioned) in the article, then they do not need to be abbreviated in the first place.

Image

According to the Summary listing, it was based on the track map listed at the 2010 Winter Olympics website of the track map itself. Chris (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I feel that perhaps omitting certain specifics could make for a more compact yet accessible article. Much is already there for FA, but polishing is perhaps what it needs now. Jappalang (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]