This article is about Ice dance, a discipline of the sport of figure skating. Ice dance is also one of the least familiar disciplines, so it's important that a high-quality article exists. We have less than two years to improve as many figure skating articles as possible before the 2022 Olympics, the only time many people pay attention to the sport. I believe this article is prepared for a FAC review, so thank you in advance. I look forward to any and all feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative oppose by Buidhe
The article focuses heavily on rules for the sport, citing the official manual. Passages such as:
In ice dance, teams can lose one point for every fall by one partner, and two points if both partners fall. If there is an interruption while performing their program, ice dancers can lose one point if it lasts more than 10 seconds but not over 20 seconds. They can lose two points if the interruption lasts 20 seconds but not over 30 seconds, and three points if it lasts 30 seconds but not more than 40 seconds. They can lose five points if the interruption lasts three or more minutes.
seem too detailed for the general reader. Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, it would be better to focus on what secondary sources say about the sport, which includes coverage of rules but maybe not as detailed as you have here.
I'd like to give you an example of a featured article for a sport to use as a model, but the only one I could find was seriously deficient in terms of the criteria and will probably be delisted soon. buidhe 19:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Firstly, I disagree that this article focuses too heavily on rules; the "Rules and regulations" section is small compared to the "History" section. I suppose you could classify the "Competition segments" and "Competition elements" sections as being about rules, but I think it can be argued that they're necessary because they describe the sport's make-up and the requirements that ice dancers must follow in competitions. You wanted a sample of another FA; how about Baseball, which is a highly detailed and comprehensive article that also cites the rule books for both Little League and Major League Baseball. Yes, baseball is more well-known than ice dance, but I doubt that most baseball fans are interested in things like the names of the territories of a field. There's plenty in this article that will satisfy the non-initiated figure skating fan, but like other sports articles, the rules should be included in order for it to be comprehensive. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this oppose; that is, while I don't see a problem with citing the rules, I do question (below) whether an exhaustive and comprehensive search for sources to expand text has been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ten-Step is sometimes capitalised, sometimes not; fourteen-step and killian not. Please make consistent for each name, and consistent or different-for-good-reasons overall.
The trouble is that sometimes the sources capitalize these words. After consulting the MOS, I think that these steps and dance names are generic terms (we don't capitalize polka, for example), so I'll make the changes. Please let me know if I've missed anything.
Looks OK, thanks (more about Killian below). --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the name Killian come from?
I dunno, none of the sources I found talk about that. I really don't know why that's important; we don't tend to ask where names like "fox trot" comes from. It needs to be lower case, though, as per the above request.
I'm happy with killian lower case for now, but it looks as if it may be named after a person, which is why I asked about the origin. In that case, I think upper case would be better: we use upper case for the Lutz jump. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it depends upon the source. There's no convention across figure skating articles in Wikipedia or in the press or other writings about the sport. The ISU, though, does capitalize elements named after persons. However, I think that since names of jumps and other elements have become generic terms, they should be lower case. The axel jump, for example, is named after a person (Axel Paulsen). I believe that the origin of the word killian is Irish, so the ice dance step is probably Irish in origin, but there's nothing out there about it.
Thanks for checking. It's OK as it is. --Mirokado (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
"much to the embarrassment of the British, who considered themselves the best ice dancers in the world." I'm entirely sure this is true (I believe something similar happened in Rugby as well!) and would hate to see it disappear, but it would be good to have a reference for it.
The reference is ref23, from Hines (2006), cited after the next sentence because both sentences can be supported with it.
In a case like this, the sentence can be interpreted as editorial opinion, so it will be better to repeat the callout even if it is for two sentences in a row. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, done.
"they won 12 out of the first 16 championships,[18] although ..." The sentence needs clarification, in particular "although" is wrong in this context, but I'm running out of time tonight to make a detailed suggestion.
Both "although" and "however" indicate that what follows qualifies what preceded. Here the statement about the first non-British winner is additional information. Also, there is already a semicolon in that sentence, so a second does not work very well. I think a new sentence presenting the additional information will work best. I've made the edit since that is clearer than specifying extended content here, by all means change further. --Mirokado (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thanks for the copyedit.
1970s to 1990s
I have always thought that a motivation for the rules about lifts and separation was to maintain the distinction between ice dance and pair skating. It's OK if I am wrong of course, but otherwise I miss any mention of that.
I'm not able to find anything supporting separation rules, but I added content and a ref about lifts.
That's good for the lifts, and the general point is covered. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rhythm dance
"They also hold the five highest ...": Please add Template:As of here.
As well as the teams credited, it might be good to add the first winners of the new segment type.
The problem with that is that the FD has been in existence since the beginning of ice dance competitions, and the first team to skate it isn't available.
The thing about that is, see, the RD isn't really a new segment; it's really just a re-name of the short dance. Therefore, I don't think it's necessary to name the first team to skate the RD after the name change.
I can buy that. Striking. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Free dance
"They also hold the five highest ...": Please add Template:As of here.
I don't think the template is necessary, since each instance includes the competitions where the teams earned the scores.
The problem is not the sourcing for the current information, but that the information is liable to go out of date with subsequent competitions. From the template documentation: "The template ((as of)) is used to mark potentially dated statements, and will add an article to the appropriate hidden sub-category of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. This allows editors to catalogue statements that may become dated over time." --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. The solution, to avoid redundancy, then, is to reword the statements. Done.
Competition elements
"changed from the 6.0 system to the ISU Judging System (IJS)": I think that this change to the judging system should be mentioned earlier in the article in a little more detail as part of the overall history. If I remember correctly, there were three problems with the old judging method: too subjective, the bloc voting already mentioned, and too many teams approaching the 6.0 maximum.
Oh, there were many more problems with the old scoring system. Ya know, we've bumped into this issue before, with other figure skating articles. I don't think that this article is the place for a discussion about the old 6.0 system compared to the new IJS system. Rather, it belongs in those individual articles. I'm not sure if those articles have those discussions, but that's not my problem, at least not yet. (One my goals is to improve both articles, along with others, before the 2022 Olympics, so that people have a place to learn about them.)
Thanks for linking 6.0 system, which works nicely. As you say, that article could be expanded a bit to cover the problems leading to its replacement more thoroughly, but having the link means we don't need more in this article. --Mirokado (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rules and regulations
"Skaters must only execute the prescribed elements; if they do not, the extra or unprescribed elements will not be counted in their score.": This could be clarified, how about: "The skaters must execute each prescribed element at least once: any extra or ..."
Ya know, I've struggled with that sentence, since it's close to the source and I wasn't sure how to clarify it better. So thanks.
You are welcome. I made a further copyedit. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Falls and interruptions
"Ice dancers experience 1.32 injuries per athlete." Please rephrase: does this mean "Ice dancers experience an average of 1.32 injuries during the course of their career" or "while performing in competitions" or ...?
Another issue bumped into. ;) I'll tell you what I told the GA reviewer for Pair skating, who brought up the same issue: The source doesn't state that information. It may in the primary source (i.e., the original study), but I think it would violate the WP:PRIMARY policy.
This has been raised in two independent reviews now. We certainly need to clarify it. As you say, the review article is very poorly expressed at that point (Google is my friend). Looking at the source given there, this figure comes from a study conducted during one U.S. national competition, so my two guesses above were way too small. Looking closer, the review has transposed the figures for singles and dancers, so in this point is is not a reliable source! Nevertheless, we can take the use of the study in the review as justification for using it directly for any necessary correction and clarification, while using the review as "cited in". I suggest something like:
A study conducted during a U.S. national competition including 58 ice dancers recorded an average of 0.97 injuries per athlete.<ref>((cite journal |last1= Fortin |first1= Joseph D. |last2= Roberts |first2= Diana |year= 2003 |pages= 313, 314 |title= Competitive Figure Skating Injuries |journal= Pain Physician |volume=6 |issue= 3))<br />Cited in ((cite book |last1=Vescovi |first1= Jason D. |last2= VanHeest |first2=Jaci L. |title= The Science of Figure Skating |year=2018 |chapter= Epidemiology of injury in figure skating |editor1-last= Vescovi |editor1-first= Jason D. |editor2-last=VanHeest |editor2-first=Jaci L. |location= New York |publisher=Routledge |page= 36 |isbn= 978-1-138-22986-0))</ref>
This is a fine solution. Ya know, I came across another unreliable study while working on an article about a jump. The researchers studied the effects of a jump on the body, using a male skater as the subject; they stated they were using the easiest jump to study, but in actuality were not. Interesting concept, but the execution of it--har-har--was all wrong, so I chose to not use it. Google is my friend, too. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 3 (set pattern): "will be" should probably be "was".
Already fixed; noticed when I saw it while working on other comments.
You are welcome, Christine. I've struck some, added some responses and will think a bit more about the rest. --Mirokado (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this is a good overview of the sport and a worthwhile update for the 2022 Olympics. I hope you will be able to find time to update other skating articles too. --Mirokado (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! Your feedback was very helpful, and has made this article better. Yes, I've been working on other figure skating articles; see this list here. Tara Lipinski has just passed GA; I'm considering submitting it for FAC. Currently, I'm working on Johnny Weir because both he and Lipinski have become the face of figure skating, with their commentating work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copyedit as I go; please revert anything I mess up. The main problem I have with this article is that every time I start reading it I keep having to go and watch Torvill and Dean's Bolero again first.
Ha! Mike, I have the same problem! Every time I read about a skater's program, I have to go watch it. Makes the edit count really low, but my excuse is that it's research, which is oh so onerous. The research I did in college and grad school wasn't nearly as fun! But thanks for suffering for the sake of improving a figure skating article. ;)
I don't like having that clunky quote from the ISU in the first paragraph. What if we made it "a discipline of pairs figure skating" in the definition? Then we don't need the additional definition in the lead, though you could still mention that the ISU is the governing body of the sport.
Um, but that's not the definition of ice dance; ice dance and pair skating are different disciplines of figure skating, and have very different histories. Are you referring to the quote about an ice dance team consisting of "one Lady and one Man"? Can you explain why that's clunky? If you like, we can remove it, although it's important to include that ice dance is a mixed sport. I added that the ISU is the governing body.
I suggested "discipline of pairs figure skating" because it currently says "discipline of figure skating"; I thought all I was doing was adding "pairs", but I guess that makes it mean something different to a figure skating fan? There are a couple of things I don't like about the ISU quote. It's odd to quote the ISU for sthis -- our article on mixed doubles says "Mixed doubles or mixed pairs is a form of mixed-sex sports that consists of teams of one man and one woman", for example; not quite the wording to use here, but no need to quote a rulebook. It's also odd to have the capitals, and the slight archaicism of using "lady" instead of "woman" is also distracting, and requires a footnote, which gets in the way of a smooth read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are four disciplines of figure skating: men's singles skating, women's single skating, pair skating, and ice dance. The reason for the ISU quote is their, as you say, archaic use of "Lady". "Lady" and "Man" are both capitalized in the ISU Rulebook and in the original quote, for historic reasons. Figure skating, in many ways, is compelled by its own history, which is full of elitism and classism, and its rules and practices still include that history. They still, well into the 21st century, have many archaic practices, like referring to female skaters as "Ladies". It needs to change, and I think including the quote, with its archaic, capitalized quote, and with the footnote is necessary because it follows our values here in Wikipedia. I won't change the language in any of the figure skating articles I edit to follow the archaic practices of the ISU, even if it means no figure skating article ever gets promoted to FA or even GA. It's been discussed over and over in different talk pages, mostly recently by me {Talk:Single_skating#Ladies_vs._women, although no one contributed to the debate at that time. There doesn't seem to a consensus about it, so in the past, figure skating articles in Wikipedia have tended to follow the ISU practice. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using "women" instead of "Ladies" seems fine to me; perhaps I'm going further than you are by saying I think the archaic language should be relegated to a footnote, if it isn't eliminated altogether. What a reader cares about is that an ice dance competition is entered by a mixed-sex pair, or a man and a woman -- however we phrase it. The "one Lady and one Man" focuses attention on the archaic, which it sounds like you'd prefer to avoid. Or do I misunderstand your position? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I guess what you're saying is that we don't focus on the archaic use, perhaps like this: According to the International Skating Union (ISU), the governing body of figure skating, an ice dance team consists of one woman and one man. and then retaining the footnote about the ISU's use of Lady. I'm good with doing that. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead talks about who dominated the sport before saying what the sport consists of; I think that's the wrong order. In the body you have history first, which I think is OK, but the history gives enough information about the development of the sport that it's not odd to talk about who dominated it at which times. In the lead there's so little information by the start of the second paragraph that it sounds odd. I think a couple more sentences at the end of the first paragraph about the goals of discipline -- technique and creativity, and perhaps grace and beauty if something along those lines can be cited.
I agree that the lead isn't complete; it should include a few more sentences about the sport's recreational nature and how it developed into a sport. I've made some changes; let me know what you think. Although are you saying that the structure of the article should be changed? At Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating, there's a proposal (made by me) for how figure skating articles in general should be structured; history/background tends to be the first section. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement. No, I think the article structure is fine, though I need to do another proper read-through so reserve the right to change my mind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd combine the last sentence of the lead with the previous one. And "publishes violations" is wrong; they publish definitions of violations. How about something like "Each year the ISU publishes a list specifying the points that can be deducted from performance scores for various reasons, including falls, interruptions, and violations of the rules concerning time, music, and clothing."?
Done.
The roots of ice dance, like pairs skating, are in the "combined skating" developed in the 19th century by skating clubs and organizations and by recreational social skating between couples and friends... There's a syntax problem here: the two instances of "by" are read as parallel, but they aren't -- combined skating wasn't developed in the 19th century by recreational social skating between couples and friends. I think this needs to be "and in recreational". I'd also suggest changing the start of the sentence to "Ice dance, like pairs skating, has its roots in" as flowing slightly more smoothly.
Done, both in the lead and the body.
Hines and Kestnbaum seem to contradict each other as to the roots of the sport; do we have any reason to believe one is more reliable a source? If not, we might as well make it clear to the reader that we've noticed the difference, with a "however" or "Hines asserts instead that" or something similar. And I don't see Kestnbaum listed in the "Works cited" -- did you forget to include it?
I didn't see H & K has contradicting each other; both are true, but I added "however". D'oh! on the absence of K, and thanks for the catch. ;)
In 1836, the Oxford Skating Society published a simple program of figures for hand-in-hand skating. What does this add to the article? It seems to contradict the date from the previous sentence (1890s) and no other comment is made about it.
I don't see the two statements as contradictory. We're tracing (har-har) the development of steps; hand-in-hand skating began to be popular in the 1890s, but no one recorded the figures used until 1836.
What surprised me was that it jumps back in time. I half-wondered if it was a typo for 1936. I found a page of Hines' dictionary on Google Books and he gives the information in chronological order, pointing it that there was a long gap after the publication before there is evidence that hand-in-hand skating was becoming popular. That order makes it much more natural. However, unfortunately his phrasing there is almost identical to yours here, so in addition we need to recast that sentence to avoid the close paraphrase. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to The Oxford Skating Society published a description and explanation of figures for hand-in-hand skating in 1836, well before it became popular.Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the parenthetical "inventor unknown"? If so I'd add it to the next sentence about Schreiter, since that mentions the creation of a dance as well.
Yes, I think we do. Figure skating historians seem to think that the inventor of steps and elements are important, probably (I think) because so many are named after their creators.
the last ice dance invented before World War I still being done today: is this an important enough fact to include? ; if you were to drop this it would be easy to add the fact that the inventor of the European waltz is unknown.
Again, yes because it demonstrates the history of the dance and how what ice dancers are doing today is connected to the past.
I'll take your word for it that this is of interest to those who follow the sport, so I'm striking the comment, but the "World War I" date just seems arbitrary. I can see that it's of interest that this dance dates back to 1909, and that one to the 1890s, but to say it's the last one still being danced that predates WWI seems a strange fact to point out. But struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Last paragraph in "Beginnings" jumps back and forth in chronological sequence; I think this could be better organized. And you have "Hines insisted" (past tense) but earlier "Hines states"; I think the present tense is the way to go.
Fixed both.
A couple of instances of "today" which might be wise to reword a little; neither really justifies an "as of 2020", but both could be improved. Perhaps "since it became an organized sport" for the first one in the "Beginnings" section, and "in the 21st century" for the second.
I agree. I changed two instances to "modern" to avoid the 2020 problem (yikes!) and followed your second suggestion.
conducted informal dance contests in waltzes and in marches such as the ten-step, the fourteen-step, and the killian, which were the only three dances used in competition until the 1930s: something is lost in syntax here. They conducted dance contests in marches such as the ten-step -- so the ten-step is a march? And if those latter three were the only ones used in competition till the 1930s (a point reinforced a couple of sentences later), why are we mentioning contests in waltzes? Unless those three are types of waltz?
How about if we remove "in waltzes and in marches".?
A personal preference -- I'd get rid of "stated"; it always sounds stilted. Use words that attribute opinions: "according to Hines", "Hines considers", "Hines argues", "Hines suggests", and so on. And avoid attributing the opinion inline at all if you can be confident it's an uncontroversial statement from a reliable source -- do we need to say that it's Hines that asserts that "the development of new ice dances was necessary..." etc? "Hines stated, about Torvill and Dean, that..." is another ugly example. And another: "As Kestnbaum stated, "The top Soviet teams...": can't we rephrase this without the quote? Similary for the pas de deux quote later in that paragraph.
Ugly, really? ;) Not a problem, I'm fine with changing it to your preference; done. Changed the K quote to "According to Kestnbaum, the top Soviet teams were the first to emphasize the dramatic aspects of ice dance, as well as to choreograph their programs around a central theme. They also incorporated elements of ballet and theatrical performances into their performances". I agree that there are too many quotes, but I'd like to keep the pas de deux one because it makes value statements like "classic ballet" and "high-art instance".
Sorry, didn't mean to be rude! I do think "stated" can almost always be improved on though. Striking this since I'm about to do another read through and start another set of comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When were the three British teams Hines mentions active? I'd guess they were all skating in the 1930s but I think that should be made clear.
The first international ice dancing competition occurred as a special event at the World Championships in 1950 in London: I initially assumed this was "the Ice Dancing World Championships" but of course it's actually the figure skating event; that should be clear to the reader without having to click through. I know you have "as a special event" as a pointer but if I missed that, others may too.
I would avoid abbreviating "free dance" to FD; it's not a long phrase.
Ok, also replaced SD with "short dance". Any other abbreviations I should change?
I went through and took out all the dance abbreviations, after thinking about it, but it's a big change so I self-reverted; take a look at that version and see what you think. I think for someone unfamiliar with the sport it's easier without the abbreviations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should see other figure skating articles, especially skater bios like Nathan Chen, which I think goes overboard with the abbreviations and is, as a result, very confusing, even for me. I try and limit them, myself, but I don't think that abbreviating RD and FD in their individual sections is problematic. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the point; personally I'd prefer to see all the abbreviations gone, but I wouldn't oppose over that. Let's see if any other reviewer comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The restrictions introduced during this period, especially jumps, spins, and the number and type of lifts: it's not clear if the restrictions limited these or required a minimum number of these, which would be a helpful detail to include.
Ok, replaced "especially" with "including".
That doesn't fix it for me -- I think you mean that the new rules excluded jumps (etc.), but given that I have no idea whether a jump is a skating skill or a dramatic aspect of ice dance, I can't tell. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Kestnbaum source, jumps, spins, and lifts had previous restrictions, so I think the best solution is to remove the phrase, which I just did. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited the first sentence about judging scandals but I think that paragraph is still not quite right; the mention of the 1998 issues should precede mention of the 2002 scandal, and in any case if the 2002 case is the culmination of the scandals, it should be given at least as much space as the 1998 issue.
How 'bout moving the sentence about 2002 to the end of the paragraph?
I'm going to pause there, since I see a few more quotes and uses of "state" in the rest of the article; when you've responded to these points I'll go on reading. Generally this seems in pretty good shape -- most of the points above are minor. My main reservation at the moment is that I think more quotes should be paraphrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, thanks for your review thus far; you've been very helpful. Finished with your comments; will go through and see what I can do about the quotes. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of time for the moment; will go through the rest of your responses later tonight or in the morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note to say that I am having to deal with a meta-wiki block that is intermittently preventing me from editing; I'll work on this tonight but if the block is active I may not be able to post anything till it goes away again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (finally; sorry about the delays). Again I'm copyediting as I go -- please revert anything you disagree with. And there's one remaining unstruck point above.
Not sure about this, but what about expanding the mention of judging scandals in the lead to make it clear that it was not only ice dance that was affected? As written (in the lead, not the body) it isn't apparent it affected figure skating at all.
Ok, added phrase: ...which also affected the other figure skating disciplines
Now I understand that the note about Oxford Skating Society is just an interjection, I think it might work better as a footnote.
Done.
The "Beginnings" section has and the ten-step, a precursor of the fourteen-step, both of which are still used in modern ice dance competitions and then later in the paragraph According to Hines, the ten-step is the basis of the fourteen-step, the oldest dance still done in the sport. One or other of these can be cut, I'd think. Though the first says both the ten-step and the fourteen-step are still danced, and the latter says only the fourteen-step is still danced -- which is it?
This wording is unclear, so I changed it to: Other early ice dances included the European waltz, before the turn of the 20th century, the ten-step, and the fourteen-step, which are all still used in modern ice dance competitions. According to Hines, the ten-step is the basis of the fourteen-step.
According to Kestnbaum, the top Soviet teams were the first to emphasize the dramatic aspects of ice dance, as well as to choreograph their programs around a central theme. I think this should be "as well as the first to". And can we drop "According to Kestnbaum"? It doesn't seem likely to be a controversial point.
Ok, done.
Hines reported that in 1998, the ISU recognized the move towards more theatrical skating in ice dance by reducing penalties on violations and relaxing rules on technical content, which he called a "major step forward". How about "In 1998, the ISU reduced penalties for violations, and relaxed rules on technical content; Hines describes this as a recognition of the move towards more theatrical skating in ice dance, and argues that it was a "major step forward".
Ok, switched out.
The U.S. began to dominate international competitions in ice dance at the turn of the 21st century;: I think we either don't need this, or we need a bit more evidence (and anyway "at the turn of the 21st century" seems odd for an era that starts ten years after the start of the century). Did Americans also dominate the World Championships?
How 'bout changing it to: "after 2000"?
According to Caroline Silby, a consultant with U.S. Figure Skating, ice dance teams, as well as pair skaters, have the added challenge of strengthening partnerships and ensuring that teams stay together for several years. Silby further asserts that the early demise or break-up of a team is often caused by consistent and unresolved conflict between partners. I think this could be more concise. How about: "According to Caroline Silby, a consultant with U.S. Figure Skating, ice dance teams and pair skaters have the added challenge of strengthening partnerships and ensuring that teams stay together for several years; unresolved conflict between partners can often cause the early break-up of a team."
Sure, switched out.
Challenges for both dancers and pairs, which can make conflict resolution and communication difficult, include the fewer number of available boys for girls to find partnerships; different priorities regarding commitment and scheduling; differences in partners' ages and developmental stages; differences in family situations; the common necessity of one or both partners moving to train at a new facility; and different skill levels when the partnership is formed. Suggest: "Both dancers and pairs face challenges that make conflict resolution and communication difficult: fewer available boys for girls to partner with; different priorities regarding commitment and scheduling; differences in partners' ages and developmental stages; differences in family situations; the common necessity of one or both partners moving to train at a new facility; and different skill levels when the partnership is formed."
Ok.
Silby estimates that due to the lack of effective communication, national-level figure skating teams are six times more likely to end their partnerships: I don't understand what this is trying to tell me.
Hopefully this clarifies it; I went back to the source: Silby estimates that the lack of effective communication between dance and pairs teams is associated with a six-fold increase in the risk of ending their partnerships.
In 2018, the short dance was renamed the rhythm dance (RD); the ice dance competition format, as of 2018, incorporates two segments, the RD and the free dance. I think you could just make this "In 2018, the short dance was renamed the rhythm dance (RD)"; the previous sentence makes it clear that the competition format is just those two segments. Or you could make it even shorter by redoing the previous sentence as "The new ice dance competition format was first included in the 2010–2011 season, incorporating just two segments: the short dance (renamed the rhythm dance in 2018) and the free dance."
Done.
There are a couple of missing citations at the end of paragraphs in the "Competition elements" and "Rules and regulations" sections.
Both sentences are a summary of what follows, so I didn't think that it needed to be included. I can remove them if you like.
That's fine, so struck, but I'd suggest putting the citations for the following material on them too, just to stop others asking the same question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
I think the main paragraph of the "Competition elements" section is weak. There are three identically structured sentences beginning "The ISU defines...", which reads clumsily. Interspersed with the definitional sentences are more narrative sentences, but they get drowned by the ISU quotes. And if the ISU's definition is what matters, why do we care if someone else defines a twizzle differently? Or if we care, should we know who it is? I think this paragraph might be one of the rare cases where a table or a bullet list works better than prose, though if the prose can be made smoother that would be best.
I experimented with a bullet list, and decided that it looks much better. I also removed the second definition of twizzle.
I agree, that's an improvement. Re: Step sequences have three divisions: Types, Groups, and Styles: without further explanation of what this means it's not very helpful; I'd either explain it or cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"The U.S. Figure Skating 2018–2019 Rulebook" defines choreographic elements in ice dance as "a listed or unlisted movement or series of movement(s) as specified". These elements are not scored in the same way as the other elements, but are confirmed if the element's minimum requirements are met. Why is the rulebook in quotes? and I don't understand what this is telling me -- it sounds like any movement at all is a choreographic element, but in that case it makes no sense to say that they're not scored in the same way as other elements.
I put the rulebook in quotes because it's a document rather than a book, and that's what I've seen the USFS do. With the move to the bullet list, this issue has been resolved. You'll notice that there's not yet an article about choreographic elements, because I haven't decided if it's necessary yet, but mostly because I haven't gotten to it yet. ;) No source I've seen describes it in this way, but it seems that it's a box the judges check if they decide that it's been done. They don't have levels or any point value per se. Competition elements in ice dance explains it better, I think, so perhaps the solution is to remove the sentence about scoring? I will go ahead and do it.
The ISU published a judges' handbook describing what judges needed to look for during ice dance competitions in 1974: from the lead, I thought they published this list every year?
I need to add that it was the first time it was published. Done.
I read through the rules section and am going to think about it some more before suggesting copyedits, so that's it for this pass. I have some sympathy for Buidhe's comment expressed above about the "how to" feel of the article. You're right in your response to Buidhe that the sections on competition segments and competition elements are necessary, but the balance feels wrong. Not counting the lead, on my screen this article is a bit over one and a half screenfuls of text on history, and a bit over two and a half on competition information and rules. Can we redress this balance with more information about the history of the sport? Or is there scholarly research that could be mentioned? I know nothing about it, but was "Dancing on Ice" an ice dance show? Was it popular enough to mention? Are there statistics about participation? Is it a sport that is regarded as for rich kids only, as tennis sometimes is? Which countries have national championships? These are just random ideas, and I don't mean that all (or any) of that has to be in the article, but I do wonder if there's scope for expansion. I'll have a look for sources over the next day or so and see if I can find anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but I still respectfully disagree. I admit that I haven't done all the research I could have about ice dance and about figure skating in general, but I suspect that I've accessed most of the major sources. Much of what I think you and Buidhe are asking for is really information and history of the sport as a whole. "Dancing on Ice" has aspects of ice dancing, but it also had pairs skating elements, so I think a discussion of it and other televised ice skating shows, which boomed in the 90s due to the Harding/Kerrigan scandal, better belong in the parent Figure skating article. I again bring up Baseball; it's also top-heavy with rules and regulations, although it has split-off articles about its history. (I anticipate our parent article eventually having a similar structure.) Baseball has the kind of stats you request, but it's a parent article, so I think that the same kind of stats about ice dance better belong in Figure skating. I agree that this article isn't as comprehensive as it could be, but I doubt that any more sources and information will make that much of a difference in making a history section about ice dance longer. I hope this doesn't prevent this article from being promoted to FA. At any rate, thanks for your review and helpful comments. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right about the material I'm asking for belonging in a parent article. I'll think about it some more, and may read through again, but will probably support once I've done so. Just one minor point left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Have read through again and this is FA quality. I have a couple of minor points below that don't affect my support.
In the third paragraph of the "1970s to 1990s" section, when did the ISU tighten the rules? Or did they do so in steps at different times? I ask because it would nice to reorganize the two sentences attributed to Kestnbaum like so: "Kestnbaum argues that there was a conflict in the ice dance community between the traditional social dance school, represented by the British, the Canadians, and the Americans, and the theatrical dance school, represented by the Russians. Initially the historic and traditional cultural school of ice dance prevailed, with the ISU introducing restrictions [during the late 1980s and early 1990s], but in 1998 the ISU reduced penalties for violations and relaxed rules on technical content, in what Kestnbaum, describes as a "major step forward" in recognizing the move towards more theatrical skating in ice dance." The bit in brackets is just a random guess at dates; I think if we cast the sentence this way, which I like because it gives the sides before naming a victor, then we do need to have the dates there.
I like this change; it tightens up the prose, so with some modifications (Hines states--harhar--the last quote, not Kestnbaum.
The U.S. began to dominate international competitions in ice dance after 2000: can we make this "The U.S. then began to dominate international competitions in ice dance", since it didn't start till 2010?
Note: I reviewed this article for GA status. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead,
"pairs skating" ===>>> "pair skating"
"Before the 2010–11 figure skating season, there were three segments in ice dance competitions: the compulsory dance (CD), the original dance (OD), and the free dance (FD). In 2010, the ISU voted to change the competition format by eliminating the CD and the OD and adding the new short dance (SD) segment to the competition schedule. In 2018, the ISU voted to rename the short dance to the rhythm dance (RD)." <<<=== I would suggest reversing this to state the current format first and then how it changed from the old format after.
I agree with Christine on that one, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting to break from the chronological format in that paragraph in order to draw more emphasis to the current format (not required). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the 1990s,
I feel like the phrase "culminated in a controversy at the 2002 Olympics" sounds like it's going to say something like "culminated in a controversy at the 2002 Olympics that led to [a change in the judging system]". Is it missing something?
In the 21st century,
The European dominance of ice dance was interrupted at the 2010 Winter Olympics <<<=== interrupted, or ended?
I feel like the paragraph with Silby doesn't really fit into the 21st century sub-section, and should have its own section or sub-section header.
In competition segments,
can you add where and when Papadakis and Cizeron achieved their record scores for RD and FD?
In rules and regulations,
can you add a sub-section going over how ice dance is scored? As in, right now, you go over what aspects are scored in terms of the competition segments and competition elements, as well as possible deductions in the rules section. But you don't talk about or mention the different facets of the IJS scores, namely the eight columns in Figure skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Ice dance from TSS through IN. (This is the only big comment I have.)
After these comments are addressed, I'll support. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Tessa and Scott as per your suggestion. I put them there because I'm trying to make it a convention to include a picture of the skaters mentioned in the article. Plus, they're so great. I'm not the only one who thinks so; at one point, another editor (prolly Canadian) inserted an image of them in every ice dance article, even if they weren't mentioned. Yes, it was painful to remove them, but they're in another part of the article, anyway. ;)
Sorry 'bout that-- it's always sad to lose a nice image ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are all kinds of citation cleanup needs.
Page ranges use endashes. Some people apparently don't see them, but the difference between them stands out glaringly, and page ranges should use WP:ENDASHes; currently, they use hyphens, endashes and emdashes.
- Hyphen (not used for page ranges)
– WP:ENDASH (the first character below the window in edit mode ... you can click on it from there)
— WP:EMDASH (the second character below the window in edit mode ... not used for page ranges)
I fixed some of these with a script,[2] but there are more that need manual checking. The script got the hyphens, but not the emdashes
Dates ... there are random ISO dates in the citations, eg:
Kany, Klaus-Reinhold (9 July 2011). "The Short Dance Debate". International Figure Skating Magazine (August 2011). Archived from the original on 2011-07-22. Retrieved 18 October 2019.
Fixed that one myself with a script,[3] you might want to install that script.
I just did a visual, and it looks like all the dates are correct.
All set, !!!!
p v pp, sample, Kestnbaum, pp. 222 ... need to check throughout.
Got it.
Fixed throughout. 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Something wrong here? Hines (2011-xxvi">Hines (2011), p. xxvi
I am so embarrassed to even ask, but do you need a NBSP after every number? It's not something that has come up for me before because I haven't tended to edit articles with as much numbers as figure skating articles have.
No, not after every number ... only where you want to prevent having the number end on one line, with the unit the number is about on the next line. It's only a guideline, so don't sweat it too much :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are basics that experienced FACcers should have in place :) :) I will read through today or tomorrow, best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! But I'm not an experienced FACer! ;) No, I appreciate the pickiness. I'm definitely out of practice. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So sorry for the ouch, Christine; it was unintended, and I apologize :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. It's all good and all for the best. ;)
That is, have you done an exhaustive search of scholar.google.com and books.google.com ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that a full literature review has been done. The above sources have content that don't belong in this article (i.e., the articles about Torvill and Dean better belong in their article) or they're too old. It's true that one of the challenges with this and most other figure skating sources is a lack of recent, updated, and reliable sources, but I think that I've been able to include most of the most important sources (Kestnbaum, Hines, the ISU itself).
By the end of the 19th century, waltzing competitions became popular throughout the world. According to Hines, Vienna was "the dancing capital of Europe, both on and off skates" in the 19th century.
19th century used twice in consecutive sentences ... can be avoided. How about inverting the order of these sentences, and combining them ... for example ... Hines writes that Vienna was "the dancing capital of Europe, both on and off skates" during the 19th century; by the end of the century, waltzing competitions became popular throughout the world.
Ack. According to writer Ellyn Kestnbaum, the origins of ice dance come from late 19th-century attempts by the Viennese and British to translate the waltz and other ballroom dances to the ice and to create ballroom-style performances on ice skates.
Would anything be lost by simplifying this to, According to writer Ellyn Kestnbaum, ice dance began with late 19th-century attempts by the Viennese and British to create ballroom-style performances on ice skates. The two clauses seem to say the same thing.
Redundancy ... two sentences beginning with same ... Kestnbaum argues that there was a conflict in the ice dance community between social dance and theatrical dance and that at the time, the historic and traditional cultural school of ice dance prevailed. Kestnbaum argues that ...
there were allegations of "bloc voting" ... passive voice. Widespread? coming from one source? who made these allegations?
Ack. Very long sentence, repetitive wording (gold medal, gold medal). The European dominance of ice dance was interrupted at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, when Canadian ice dance team Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir won the gold medal, marking the first time a team from North America had won a gold medal at the Olympics, and Americans Meryl Davis and Charlie White won the silver.
The European dominance of ice dance was interrupted at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver by Canadians Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir and Americans Meryl Davis and Charlie White. The Canadian ice dance team won the first Olympic ice dance gold medal for North America, and the Americans won the silver.
OK, so I hate nitpicky prose FAC reviews, and suggest that some prose tightening is needed in general. I'll stop for now, please ping me when I should revisit. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got the above acks. I'll go over it one more time so that you don't see as many when you return, and then I'll ping ya. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I've done the above and am ready for what's next! BTW, I don't mind the nitpicky prose reviews. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Christine. Continuing on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the Time section, we have five seconds, but also 10 seconds and 30 seconds. While we typically spell out less than ten, it is important to maintain consistency within a list or section. My suggestion is to just spell out ten and thirty for consistency. I will do a full read-through next, with an eye towards supporting.
Fixed, as per your suggestion. I also went through the entire article for similar fixes.
Support, nice work, Christine (I trust you'll sort the number consistency mentioned above). SandyGeorgia(Talk) 16:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks so much! I'm sincerely honored that you reviewed and supported. This will be the second-ever figure skating FA! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead refers to "a series of judging scandals" but the article singles out only the 2002 Winter Olympics figure skating scandal, which of course affects figure skating. An example would be good.
The paragraph also mentions the scandal during the 1988 Olympics. Not only doesn't the source list all the scandals, but I didn't want to list them because I don't think this is the place for that.
References required in the last sentence of "1970s to 1990s", the last sentence of the first paragraph of "Competition segments", and second paragraph of "Time".
Ref35 is at the end of the 1970s to 1990s section. Other two done.
Tessa Virtue and Scott Moir are mentioned before they are linked.
Got it.
Link "2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver"
Got it.
Split the second paragraph of "1970s to 1990s" at "The ISU pushed back"
Done.
An intriguing bit: "fewer available boys for girls to partner with". Suddenly the skaters have become boys and girls, and what is the reason for this disparity?
Huh, you're the first to bump into that. That's the way the source puts it; plus, we're talking about the beginning of skaters' career, when they tend to be boys and girls.
Another great bit: costumes must not "give the effect of excessive nudity inappropriate for the discipline". (Now I'm going to spend the rest of the day trying to imagine what excessive nudity looks like.) Overall, I get the impression of judges being like the women on the night club door ("You're not getting in here wearing that"), with all the integrity of the Eurovision popular song contest. (And if I had to perform acrobatics, I would want tights, not trousers.)
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
