Talk:Para-swimming classification

Ugly name

The name "Para-swimming" is imho quite ugly and not at all descriptive. It strikes me as too similar to terms such as "para-legal" or "para-medic" which denote someone who is not a "full" or "proper" qualified medical or legal professional. I know the rerm is a contraction of "Paralympic swimming" but that is not without problems either because the Paralympic Games is only one of many events at which swimmers with disabilities compete.

Gramatically the term is also problematic - it is the person (swimmer), not the activity (swimming), that is classified.

I'd like to propose that the article title (and relevant terminology within the article) be changed to Disabled swimmer classification or IPC swimming classification which refers to the organisation whose classification system it is.

Further I like to suggest that all articles related to sport for disabled athletes should try as far as possible to avoid this type of "Para-<sport>" terminology. Although such a proposal should happen at WikiProject level, it would be useful if participants here could share their thoughts on the topic. Roger (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disability swimming is fine, but disabled not so much. There is a move away from disabled as it defines a person, where the word disability does not. The term para-swimming is the one I've seen used more in sources. I'm not a huge fan of either in any case, because I don't think disabled is what most people associated visual impairments, les autres and intellectual disability. IPC swimming is not what I've seen used, and it doesn't quite work because you have para-swimming in local and state, national competitions and the commonwealth games. --LauraHale (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Here in Australia, we'd usually either use "multi-class swimming", or "SWD" - swimmers with disability. I can live with 'para-swimming', but it's one of those terms I read online but never hear spoken (and yes, I *am* a SWD). Another SWD I know - former international - strongly dislikes the term. They tweeted "why aren't you saying 'Cameron Lesley (swimming), not Cameron Lesley (para-swimming)? Para-swimming isn't even a thing". (I feel about the same about 'para-athletics'. Unnecessary, ugly, made up word - do the able bods want to separate themselves from us? It's athletics. It's swimming. Regardless of whether your arms and legs are present and fully functional. That said, I'm happy to call myself a "paratriathlete"...) Sportygeek (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, the shooters seem to get a kick out of being called "para-shooters". Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Para-swimming classification/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jamesyboy2468 (talk · contribs) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll take this one jamesy boy (2468) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A few more references on the history section would be nice.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comment: There is no move discussion that is ongoing. There is a comment on a talk page, not on the article page. There has been no follow up for a comment about a month old. There is no indication the name will change. This stability issue is a non-issue. What else needs to be addressed? --LauraHale (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A strange reviewing approach it has to be said..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose that the move discussion does not have a significance. Late night Wikipedia editing... jamesy boy (2468) 15:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: There are 19 references in the History section, which is fully referenced. What additional references do you want? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer's now disappeared, so I'm not sure what to do here, whether to pass or put it back in the queue, leaning towards the latter. Wizardman 23:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Para-swimming classification/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 17:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'm going to take on this one as well. I'll be back soon with a full rundown. I don't anticipate any major issues, but we'll see as it goes along. --Batard0 (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• Should we start with "The para-swimming classification"? It feels a little awkward to start the first sentence without an article.
  •  Not done Not half as awkward as an unwanted article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, this is fine. --Batard0 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• "functional based" --> "functional-based" (compound adjective takes hyphen)
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Wikilink all the swimming styles in the lead: freestyle, butterfly, etc.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The swimmers with physical disabilities are divided into ten classes, based on the degree of functional disability." --> "Swimmers with physical disabilities are divided into ten classes based on the degree of their functional disabilities." reads better.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Swimmers with visual impairments are divided into three classes." --> "Those with visual impairments are divided into three additional classes."
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "There is also one last class, S14, which is for intellectually disabled swimmers." --> "A final class, S14, is reserved for intellectually disabled swimmers."
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Swimming was one of the first organised sports for people with disabilities, and was contested at the 1960 Summer Paralympics." --> "Swimming is one of the oldest organised sports for people with disabilities, and was contested at the first summer Paralympics in 1960." is a bit clearer because it establishes that the 1960 Paralympics were the first.
  •  Not done Yes, but this would introduce an ambiguity about whether swimming is one of the oldest organised sports, or just the one of the oldest to be organised for people with disabilities. Tried another wording. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • This is fine.
• "The rules for this sport and approval for classification were set by the Fédération International de Natation Amateur (FINA), with the International Paralympic Committee taking over the governance of classification in 1992." --> "The rules for the sport and approval of classifications were the responsibility of the Fédération International de Natation Amateur (FINA) until 1992, when the International Paralympic Committee took over the governance of classifications." This reads more clearly, I think.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "are eligible to compete in this sport" --> "are eligible to compete in the sport"
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The classification system started out as a medical based classification, before moving to a functional disability based one. The changes were made in order to make para-swimming more competitive." --> "Classification under the system was at first based on medical criteria, but is currently determined based on functional disability. The change was made to make para-swimming more competitive." I think this is a bit clearer.
  •  Done. Yes, but in fact is still functional for blind sports. Tweaked the wording a little. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The sport is moving" --> "The sport is currently moving"
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition

More to come... --Batard0 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Swimming classification is based on a functional system, where non-swimming related physical criteria are assessed." --> "Para-swimming classification is based on a system in which non-swimming-related functional criteria are assessed." This is a little shorter; replaces "Swimming" with "Para-swimming", puts a second hyphen in the compound adjective and moves the word "functional" for clarity.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "This means that athletes who may have quite different physical disabilities may still compete in the same class, so long as their functional impairment is similar" --> "Athletes who have different physical disabilities may compete in the same class so long as their functional impairments are similar." This shortens the sentence without changing its meaning and corrects a grammatical error.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "In swimming, bilateral below the elbow amputations have a significant impact on functional ability to swim." --> "In swimming, amputations of the arms below the elbow have a significant impact on functional ability." This language is a bit more clear and less technical, I think. It also removes "to swim" from the end, which isn't necessary since we've said at the beginning that we're talking about swimming.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "As a result, swimming classifications differ from athletics because of the differences in body use requirements impacting performance" --> "As a result, swimming classifications differ from athletics classifications." End the sentence here. We've just discussed how arm amputations can affect performance in swimming, so there's no need to repeat that that's why it's different.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The swimmers are divided into ten classes, numbered S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9 and S10, based on the degree of functional disability" --> "Swimmers are divided into ten classes based on the degree of functional disability: S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9 and S10." This reads more clearly, I think.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The most severely affected are in class 1, who are normally wheelchair bound outside the pool." --> "The most severely disabled people are in class S1; these competitors are normally wheelchair bound outside the pool." I think this is clearer, and describes the class as "S1", which I believe is its proper name.
  •  Done. Yes, but we don't want to call them "severely disabled", which they are not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The classes are prefixed with "S" for freestyle, butterfly and backstroke events, "SB" for breaststroke and "SM" for individual medley events" --> "Classes prefixed with the letter "S" cover freestyle, butterfly and backstroke events, while "SB" classes cover the breaststroke and "SM" covers individual medley events." I think this is a bit clearer; we earlier said the ten classes are S1, S2, ... S10, and it feels a little redundant to say classes "are prefixed with S" if they're freestyle, etc. One could interpret this as meaning they would be "SS1" etc.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "In the case of the breaststroke, the hand and the hip play a crucial role in the ability to swim this stroke" --> "In the case of the breaststroke, for example, the hand and the hip play a crucial role, while the arms and legs are more important in the backstroke." I'm just making this last part up (it may be true), but I think this sentence is trying to show that different strokes use different parts of the body, and to do that, we need to compare two strokes and the parts of the body they employ.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• We can remove "Because of the functional mobility classifications in this sport," First, it gets rid of repetition of a "because" clause to begin a sentence, and second, it we've already essentially set everything up with what appears in the previous sentence.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "swimmers with cerebral palsy, spinal cord injuries and limb deficiencies could all compete against each other." --> "Swimmers with cerebral palsy, spinal cord injuries and limb deficiencies may compete against each other." Capitalizes as new sentence, and substitutes "may" for "could", which implies that people with these disabilities haven't competed against each other but haven't yet. "May", on the other hand, simply says that they bay compete against each other without breaking any rules of the classifications, which I think is what we're trying to convey here.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• " It is the only Paralympic sport where the classification system would allow this" --> "Swimming is the only Paralympic sport where the classification system allows this." Is clearer.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "In addition, there are three classes, S11, S12 and S13, for visually impaired swimmers." --> "There are three additional classes for visually impaired swimmers: S11, S12 and S13." Reads more smoothly.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• We can remove "Again," at the beginning of the following sentence. It doesn't add much to the meaning.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "blackened-out" should be "blacked-out", I think, unless the former is some kind of technical term.
  •  Done. Yes, it's a technical term. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • We sure about this? This site about blind swimmers says "swimmers are required to wear blacked out goggles". The article here about the Paralympics says "Partially-sighted swimmers wear blacked-out goggles so they can race against completely blind athletes". There are a few articles with "blackened-out", but there are about 1,500 google hits versus about 1.6 million for "blacked-out". --Batard0 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay. changed to "blacked-out" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• "They have a "tapper" who uses a pole or "bonker" to tap the swimmer to warn them that they are approaching the end of the pool." --> "They have "tappers" who use poles or "bonkers" to warn swimmers as the end of the pool approaches." This is more concise, and is grammatically correct.
  •  Done. Maybe, but it introduces an ambiguity; each swimmer has only one tapper. Tweaked the wording.
• "The blind classifications are based on medical classification, no functional mobility classification" --> "The vision classifications are based on medical evaluation and not on functional mobility." Is clearer.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "There is also one last class, S14, which is for intellectually disabled swimmers" --> "A final class, S14, is for intellectually disabled swimmers" is more concise.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• There's a picture of a S15 competitor below the definition, but this isn't described in the text about the classification.
  •  Done. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Also, the first two pictures in this section are depictions of classifications in wheelchair rugby. Are these appropriate in an article about swimming?
  • As far as I know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • How so? I mean, these pictures apply to wheelchair rugby, right? People don't swim in wheelchairs, unless I'm missing something. I don't see these pictures on the website of the IPC's swimming site or any classification manuals. They seem to be based on an evaluation system where swimmers are assigned points for the severity of disabilities as a starting point. It's very odd that the article includes no mention of this. See this manual. --Batard0 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      • We couldn't use their pictures for copyright reasons - they are free images - so a we created a new set for the Paralympic articles. People don't usually swim in wheelchairs, but para-swimmers in these classes will be wheelchair-bound. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Governance

More to come... --Batard0 (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikilink Rome.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The rules for this sport" --> "The rules for the sport"
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what "approval for classification" means in this context -- is the FINA approving people's qualification under classifications, or approving the classifications themselves for use? That's not clear.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "In 1992, the International Paralympic Committee formally became the governing body for disability swimming," --> "In 1992, the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) became the governing body for disability swimming." Substitutes a period for the comma at the end of the sentence, adds an abbreviation for IPC and removes "formally" as it's not necessary here. Also, please link the International Paralympic Committee.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "Four different sporting bodies including the IBSA, ISOD, ISMWSF and the CP-ISRA assisted the IPC in governing swimming at the 1992 Games." We'll need to spell out the full names of any bodies we haven't already referenced. We can't expect readers to infer what these are.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• "The IPC Classification Code and IPC Swimming govern the classification process through their rules, with the classification process being implemented by classifiers recognised by the IPC." --> "The IPC Classification Code and IPC Swimming govern the classification process. Classification is handled by classifiers recognised by the IPC." This is clearer.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Eligibility

More to come... --Batard0 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• "are eligible" --> "were eligible".
• This part: "In 1983, Cerebral Palsy-International Sports and Recreation Association (CP-ISRA) set the eligibility rules for classification for this sport. They defined cerebral palsy as a non-progressive brain lesion that results in impairment. People with cerebral palsy or non-progressive brain damage were eligible for classification by them. The organisation also dealt with classification for people with similar impairments." Doesn't mesh with the governance section. How can the CP-ISRA determine eligibility when the IPC is the governing body? The above says the CP-ISRA "assisted the IPC" specifically in the 1992 games, but there's no stated role for the CP-ISRA beyond that. This needs to be clarified substantially.
• The comment above applies to the "Eligibility" section in general, which I find confusing. We say the IPC governs the sport, and yet we then have a whole section about the classification of people with cerebral palsy and other similar disorders. I can't see why this should warrant its own section (which is mistitled, given its narrow focus). --Batard0 (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I have removed the section, which seems to duplicate what is said below. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Governance

• Could we be a little more specific when we say "classification is performed"? Are we saying "Classification of swimmers is performed"?
  • It is more precise as it is. There aren't many trained classifiers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • How could "classification is performed" be more precise than "classification of swimmers is performed"? I don't see what the fact that there aren't many trained classifiers has to do with this. --Batard0 (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
      •  Done Because the sentence may mislead the reader into thinking that classification of other athletes is not not performed by classifiers that are recognised by the IPC. Anyhow, added "of swimmers". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

History

• "The classification for this sport was created during the 1940s and for much of its early history was a medical condition based classification system" --> "The classification system for para-swimming was created during the 1940s, and for much of its early history swimmers were classified based on their medical conditions." This reads more clearly, I think.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• In "The debate about inclusion of competitors into able-bodied competitions was seen by some disability sport advocates like Horst Strokhkendl as a hindrance to the development of an independent classification system not based on the rules for able-bodied sport." there are a few issues. First, what does "the debate about inclusion of competitors into able-bodied competitions" mean? Such a debate hasn't been discussed before, and yet we're calling it "the debate". What was being debated? Are we saying there was a debate where someone (who?) was arguing that disabled swimmers should be included in regular competitions against able-bodied people? This, at least at first glance, seems a little absurd. You couldn't expect a severely disabled person to have a fair chance against able-bodied people. I'm probably not understanding the intent of the sentence properly.
• I'm also confused about "These efforts ended by 1993 as the International Paralympic Committee carved out its own identity, and largely ceased efforts for inclusion of disability sports on the Olympic programme". This may shed some light on what the previous sentence was all about, though. Are we saying there was a debate about the inclusion of para-swimming as an event in the regular Olympics instead of treating it as a separate sport? All of this should be clarified, I think -- shouldn't be too hard. We can abbreviate IPC (referenced before) and put this sentence more concisely, perhaps like this: "These efforts ended by 1993 with the founding of the International Paralympic Committee, which did not advocate inclusion of disability sports on the Olympic programme."
  • Back in 1996 and 1996, Paralympic events were held as part of the Olympic Games, and there was talk about whether the two should merge. At the lower level, this meant para-swimming at the FINA world championships rather than Stoke-Mandeville. I don't think tyhis bit fits here, so I have removed it.
    • Ok. --Batard0 (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• The next sentence is confusing and long. "During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the classification system, set up as a series of "handicaps", was seen as problematic because in an effort co clearly describe a disability and promote fairness, the number of classifications had made having competitive events difficult as there were too few people in a classification to the point where an international event for people with disabilities said "1000 competitors = 1000 winners."" I would suggest: "During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the classification system, set up as a series of "handicaps", was seen as problematic. In an effort to clearly describe disabilities and promote fairness, the number of classifications had ballooned. That made organizing competitive events difficult as there were too few people in each classification; international events for people with disabilities were said to have as many winners as competitors." Also, by whom was it seen as problematic? By athletes?
  • 1000 Kämpfer, 1000 sieger XXI. Weltspiele der Gelähmten Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I see this has been moved a bit, but "During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the classification system, set up as a series of "handicaps"." lacks a verb. --Batard0 (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• "There were some expectations to this in classes like double leg paralysis as a result of brain or spinal injury and single leg amputations.By the early 1960s, there was an acknowledgement in the German swimming community that it was not fair for swimmers with tetraspasticism to compete against swimmers with lower extremity paralysis." It's hard to understand how this fits with the foregoing sentences. Is "expectations" supposed to be "exceptions"? There's no space after the period that ends the first sentence, and it's simply unclear how this relates. It reads as though it was written in a hurry.
  • Dropped sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Their system had seven classifications. There was a CP class for athletes with hemiispacitiy who would also compete in the same class against Class C competitors who were single arm above the elbow amputees, had double-arm dysmelia type ectromedlia, had single arm paralysis or had a fixed shoulder joint." In this bit, we can't leave "hemiispacitiy" redlinked with no explanation; it's too technical. It could be a misspelling, I guess. At minimum, it needs some kind of simple English definition in the text. Same goes for "ectromediia". I'm also having trouble making sense of the sentence. It may become clearer once these terms are defined. --Batard0 (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done. Corrected spelling, added links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• In this sentence: "In 1983, classification for cerebral palsy competitors in this sport was done by the Cerebral Palsy-International Sports and Recreation Association." I'd change it to "classification for swimmers with cerebral palsy was done by ... etc." for clarity.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "25 metre freestyle event with flotation devices and the without flotation devices" -- > "25 metre freestyle event with or without flotation devices"
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• There's no period after the sentence that begins: "Class 2 competitors could compete"
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "That year, 80 to 85 per cent of all competitors with cerebral palsy competed in the same classification." But which classification? And all competitors where? In the world? In international competition?
  •  Done. Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "By 1990, there were ten classifications that could compete in breaststroke" --> "By 1990, swimmers in ten classifications that could compete in breaststroke" Classifications don't swim. Swimmers swim.
  •  Done. Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Classification for swimming at times relied on a points system to assess the severity of physical disability with out considering athlete functionality specifically as it applied to the ability to swim." --> "Classification for swimming at times relied on a points system to assess the severity of physical disability without considering functional ability to swim." This is clearer, I think.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "This created some problems with swimming classification because certain types of disability had a greater negative impact on swimming than others, and the point system did not always address functional ability." --> "This caused problems because certain disabilities had greater negative impacts on swimming ability than others." This is more concise.
  •  Done. Yes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Attempts were made in 1990 to address this by eliminating point consideration for disability types that did not impact performance." --> "Attempts were made in 1990 to address this by eliminating the points system for disabilies that did not impact performance." This is clearer and more concise.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• There's an overuse of the passive voice in this paragraph, which obscures who's taking action. Who is deciding to fix the classification system? Who is reducing the number of classifications? It's better to say this instead of things like "it was determined" or "it was decided" or "attempts were made" etc.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "During the 1990s, there were efforts to reduce the number of swimming classifications" --> "During the 1990s, efforts were made to reduce the number of swimming classifications" is clearer; active voice would be even better.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "There was a decision to try to fix athlete classification so that competitors could have more certainty in which classification they would compete in before attending an event." --> "Athlete classifications were fixed so that competitors could know which classification they would compete in before attending an event." is more concise and clearer, but begs for the active voice.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "This was a big change as previously, athletes would be classified right before, and even during an event." --> "This was a big change; previously, athletes were classified before and even during events." is more concise and eliminates some grammatical errors.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "The number of swimming classifications subsequently dropped from 31 at Seoul to 10 in Barcelona" Please wikilink Seoul and Barcelona and tell us what year they happened.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Going into the 1992 Summer Paralympics, there was a push to move more towards a functional classification system by the International Coordinating Committee and the Technical Committee of the International Paralympic Committee." --> "Going into the 1992 Summer Paralympics, the International Coordinating Committee and the Technical Committee of the IPC made a push to move towards a functional classification system." This is in the active voice and is more concise.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Wikilink "Barcelona Olympics Organising Committee" to the main Olympics article or something else if possible.
  •  Not done. The games are already linked, and there is no article on COOB. I have, however, created a redirect for it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok. --Batard0 (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• "when a discussion was started about what events and classifications should be eligible for the Games." --> "when a discussion began about what events and classifications should be eligible for the games." Removes passive voice, lowercases "Games" (uppercase unnecessary here)
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• This sentence: "A study by the organising committee and the Polytechnic University of Catalonia in the lead up to the meeting." Lacks a verb. Also, "lead-up" takes a hyphen.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "It looked at the results for the 1984 and 1987 Stoke Mandeville Games, the 1984 New York Games, a 1985 Brussels competition, a 1985 Rome competition, a 1986 Puerto Rico competition, a 1987 Paris competition, the 1988 Seoul Games and a 1989 Nottingham competition." What are these competitions? None of them are wikilinked, nor are they explained in the text. Are we talking about paralympic competitions or something else?
  •  Done Some of them area and some aren't. Changed to "recent international completions". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "The local organising committee was insistent such a system be implemented to insure the sport at the Paralympic Games was serious and competitive, instead of recreational." --> "The local organising committee insisted such a system be implemented to ensure the sport at the Paralympic Games was serious and competitive, instead of recreational." Changes "was insistent" to "insisted", which is better. Also changes "insure" to "ensure".
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• The last part of this sentence is a non sequitur: "The Games were the first ones where swimmers of different types of disabilities competed against each other, swimmers had a guaranteed right to appeal their classification." I'd recommend two sentences, like "The games were the first where swimmers with different disabilities competed against each other. Swimmers had a guaranteed right to appeal their classifications."
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• In the following sentence: "Ahead of the 2000 Summer Paralympics, changes were made in classification for the breaststroke, bringing the total number of functional classifications down to nine, from ten that had competed in Atlanta." We talk about Atlanta, but it's not discussed or wikilinked before. We need a year at minimum. We also need to describe what exactly happened, like: "Ahead of the 2000 Summer Paralympics, one of the breaststroke classifications was eliminated, bringing the total number of functional classifications down to nine...etc."
  •  Done Everyone is trying to forget that one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "This was in response the fewer competitors in this classification and the slowness of the speed of competitors." But which classification is "this classification"? We never mention the name of the classification, but then refer to it as "this". I assume it's SB10?
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Swimmers who had been classified as SB10 in Atlanta opted not to compete in Sydney." We need some kind of wikilink or description of what Sydney is, plus a year.
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "The S9 classification was part of the 1994 Commonwealth Games" Why are we bringing this up here? Was it introduced in 1994? If so, we need to say this.
  •  Done Dropped. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Several classes in this sport were included in the 2002 Commonwealth Games." This makes little sense to me. We're talking about swimming, so are we saying several classes in swimming were included in the 2002 Commonwealth Games?" If that's all we're saying, it seems trivial. Aren't swimming classes by definition included in any international competition?
  •  Done Dropped. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "The effort coincided with the rise of sports science." What effort?
  •  Done Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "This provided an increasingly detailed understanding of the factors involved in high performance swimming." --> "These studies provided an increasingly detailed understanding of the factors involved in high-performance swimming."
  •  Done Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Henceforth sports science became the driver of both performance and classification." --> "Sports science subsequently became the driver of both performance and classification." But the sentence still doesn't make sense, since it's not clear any of this applies to para-swimming. Are we saying sports science became the driver of classification in para-swimming? If so, "sports science" seems a vague term. What, specifically, does sports science bring to classification? It would be better if we described this fully.
  • It's critical! The most important sentence in the whole section! Sports science provided an increasingly detailed understanding of the factors involved in high performance swimming. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • That's fine, but it would be nice if we could be more precise; what, specifically, about sports science was influential here? --Batard0 (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't know what to say! The whole point is that by understanding what the factors involved in sport performance are, concentration can be on those factors, instead of on medical conditions. Sports science makes functional classification possible. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Classification process

• "During the classification process, a variety of things are looked at, including whether or not a swimmer's physical limitations require them to start in the water, and how a swimmer enters the water in competition." --> "During the classification process, classifiers evaluate factors including whether a swimmer's physical limitations require him or her to start in the water and how the swimmer enters the water in competition." This is clearer and grammatically correct.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "At international competitions, there is a two person classification panel, with at least one of the classifiers having a medical background." --> "A two-person panel composed of at least one person with a medical background handles classification at international competitions." This is much clearer.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Classifiers are required to be aware of and familiar with the type of disability they are classifying: physical, visual or intellectual." --> "Classifiers are required to be familiar with the type of disability they are classifying, whether physical, visual or intellectual." This is more concise; there's also an extra space between the end of the sentence and the reference.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "National classification should mirror the international classification process, while being left to nationally recognised IPC classifiers" --> "Classification by national sports bodies mirrors the international classification process, while being left to nationally recognised IPC classifiers" This is clearer.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "For example, for Australian competitors in this sport, the sport and classification is managed the national sport federation with support from the Australian Paralympic Committee." --> "For Australian competitors, for example, classification is managed by the national sport federation with support from the Australian Paralympic Committee." This is clearer.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• Lowercase "Provisional" in the following sentence.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "club level competitions" should be "club-level competitions" (compound adjectives take hyphens)
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "During the classification process, swimmers are required to disclose any medications they regularly use and provide detailed records of their medical history that a classifier may deem relevant for evaluating their classification." --> "Swimmers are required to disclose any medications they regularly use and provide detailed records of their medical history if a classifier deems them relevant." The first clause isn't necessary because we've just discussed the process in the previous sentence. Other minor fixes for conciseness.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "some one familiar" --> "someone familiar" (someone is one word)
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "The process includes a physical assessment, a functional assessment that may include performance in the pool and engaging in other physical activities, observation assessment, and specified means of physical and technical assessment." --> "The process includes a physical assessment, observation assessment and a functional assessment that may include performance in the pool." I curtailed this for conciseness; I'm not sure what "specified means of physical and technical assessment" means.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "If a swimmer intentionally misrepresents their disability, they will be barred from the classification process for a minimum of two years and be unable to compete." --> "If a swimmer intentionally misrepresents his or her disability, he or she is barred from the classification process for a minimum of two years and is unable to compete." Grammar.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "If swimmers do not agree with their classification, they can appeal it through the International Paralympic Committee Board of Appeal on Classification, which is the body recognised by IPC Swimming." --> "If swimmers do not agree with their classifications, they can appeal through the International Paralympic Committee Board of Appeal on Classification." Grammar fixes. I don't think we need to say it's recognized by the IPC given that it has the IPC's very name in its own name. Clearly it's part of the IPC.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Classification can be protested, and formal processes exist for how to do this in non-competition and competition periods." I'd remove this, since the previous sentence already says swimmers can appeal their classifications. This simply repeats it.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Classification for blind swimmers took less time, and only lasted around 15 minutes." --> "Classification for blind swimmers took around 15 minutes." This is shorter.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Clasification at the Paralympics

• "All disability types were eligible to participate at the 1992 Summer Paralympics, with classification being run through the IPC, based on functional disability type." --> "All disability types were eligible to participate at the 1992 Summer Paralympics. The IPC oversaw classification based on functional disability." This is better, avoids WP:PLUSING.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "General and functional classification took place in the Paralympic Village; functional swimming classification took place at the Piscines Bernat Picronell." I think the specific dates and locations of the classification at the 1992 Paralympics are trivial and shouldn't be included. In any event, we don't have similar details for other Paralympics, so why this one?
  • It just an example. The point is that classification was done at the Games. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Classification was important because if on the spot classifications resulted in changes to a competitor's classification, it impacted the competition schedule." --> "The process became a contentious issue at the Paralympics because of on-the-spot reclassifications that resulted in changes to the competition schedule." This is clearer, I think.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "Consequently, on the spot classification or re-classification, was viewed as a negative aspect of the 1996 Summer Paralympics and the Paralympic movement overall" --> "On-the-spot classification or re-classification, was viewed as a negative aspect of the 1996 Summer Paralympics and the Paralympic movement overall."
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "At the 2000 Summer Paralympics, 54 assessments were conducted at the Games, which resulted in 13 class changes." --> "At the 2000 Summer Paralympics, 54 assessments were conducted, resulting in 13 class changes." This is more concise.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "There was one PNS protest and two PPS protests by a national Paralympic committee, with one classification upheld and two denied." But we haven't said what PNS or PPS are.
  •  Done. Want to keep them, as the they might be the reason a reader is here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• "There were six classification appeals lodged for swimming at the 2000 Summer Paralympics involving four athletes which resulted in two class changes" --> "Six classification appeals were lodged for swimming at the 2000 Summer Paralympics involving four athletes, resulting in two class changes" This is clearer.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• In the last sentence, IPC cane be abbreviated and unlinked given that we've used it numerous times previously. "evidence based system" should be "evidence-based system". "performance based" should be "performance-based", as compound adjectives take hyphens. --Batard0 (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Overarching comments

• This is for the nominator, who unfortunately appears to be away at the moment. Thanks to those who are filling in. I acknowledge and appreciate that a lot of hard work went into this article, but I feel that it could have been improved and brought closer to meeting the GA criteria before submission. Almost every sentence has grammatical or prose clarity and conciseness issues. A couple sentences lack periods. One lacks a verb. Oftentimes the prose is confusing and illogically structured. Wikilinks are absent where they're needed and abundant where they've been previously linked. Obscure terms are not properly defined and acronyms are introduced before they're spelled out. This smacks of something slapped together haphazardly, without the requisite thought or care necessary to meet the GA criteria. Personally, I'm happy to help improve these articles, and will be more than happy to assist in the future. I would, however, recommend trying to fix more of these basic issues before putting articles up for GA reviews. I enjoy making things better, but the GA process isn't meant for major overhauls; the guideline says "If you believe an article meets the Good article criteria, you may nominate it". It's better and often easier to get these things sorted out before the GA process begins, in my view.

• In this particular case, I think the issues discussed above are fixable but will require some work. The most important part is getting the History section right. At the moment, it's disjointed and confusing. I would suggest taking a fresh look at the structure and organization of the section. I'd consider rearranging it, putting it in a strict chronology and discussing each important step in the history of para-swimming classification in the context of what went before it. Roughly speaking, it should be a narrative -- i.e. it started with X, evolved into Y and is now Z. And so forth. --Batard0 (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional notes

Thanks for working through all these issues. I'm going to give it a last pass and make some copyedits. Please feel free to revert and discuss below if there's any disagreement. After this stage, I think it should meet the criteria. --Batard0 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Going through this again, I'm noticing that at least a couple of the issues marked as done were not in fact done. For example: "In the case of the breaststroke, the hand and the hip play a crucial role in the ability to swim this stroke" --> "In the case of the breaststroke, for example, the hand and the hip play a crucial role, while the arms and legs are more important in the backstroke.". This bothers me. I'm still assuming good faith here, but please try not to mark things as resolved, fixed or done when they are not. --Batard0 (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

All right. I'm going to list this now. Thanks for fixing the issues raised above. --Batard0 (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

S15, SM15, S15

Why is the S15 hearing loss class not mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.162.173 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Para-swimming classification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120815080227/https://www.paralympic.org.au/sports-amp-classification/summer-sports/summer-sports to http://www.paralympic.org.au/sports-amp-classification/summer-sports/summer-sports

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)