Talk:Preparedness for 2012 Paralympic Games differs between National Paralympic Committees

Journalist notes

This builds a bit on the article written by Hawkeye7 about Team USA and how they do not appear so competent. It was kind of the inspiration in some ways for this article, as I wanted to contrast how media savvy to a degree they are as I had a conversation on Friday when I was touring the Media Press Centre (MPC) about the pigeon cubby holes for sports. (I have a picture of this if some one want to see it.) The volunteer said that despite the major move to online reporting, many journalist still preferred to have paper copies of documents.

This picture may be preferable

Today, myself and Hawkeye7 went on tour of the second floor of the MPC. We found offices for only THREE Paralympic Committees on site. They were Brazil, the United States and Canada. Canada and the United States were located next to each other. Hawkeye7 and and I requested a copy of a printed media guide from all three. The USA said they did not have one and would not have one. They might have one on a USB dongle later. We could access it online. (This was terribly disappointing because the APC had given me one at the Novotel Tower Bridge based offices earlier in the day. I'm collecting these things as a historian and for the National Sport Information Centre in Canberra.) This was part of the weird conversation that is detailed in Hawkeye7's report, where I then talked about their television coverage and how it did not exist. The Canadians were asked around the same time. They said they had one online, but their print version had not yet arrived from Canada. (They also said their team flag bearer announcement would be made tomorrow.) We then went to talk to the Brazilians. They had a media guide in print (and online. Here is the address for you to access it! We do stuff on wikipedia but not organised like you!) but it is only in Portuguese. They were working on getting a print translation done soon. Tony Naar of the APC looked at it and thought the Australian one provided more information and was better. (My opinion of that is the same. It is more comprehensive.)

We had a look around for Team GB before asking some one where they were located and were told they are not onsite in the MPC. According to a sign at the desk in the MPC, paper copies of their media guide are available upon request if you contact them.

The Papua New Guineans are not on site but they do have a paper version and online version. I have a copy of the paper version that they created. That is why the article is see alsoed because it referenced that. :)

At this point, the date the Games start should be common knowledge. :) --LauraHale (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Title

• Been scratching my head for an age, and can't figure a better title that's active. This one is pretty unwieldy as-is, and I'd like it improved. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Made a tiny but perhaps discernible improvement by replacing "different" with "differs". --Pi zero (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Had a similar problem of how to make it better active voice. Everything I thought of was pass, unless I went with: Australian and Brazil Paralympic Committees invest in print while the United States forsakes journalist preference for paper. ;) --LauraHale (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1602118 [Passed]

Revision 1602118 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: "Related news" rather than "See also". Sisters, you know. :-) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1602118 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: "Related news" rather than "See also". Sisters, you know. :-) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.