Talk:2009 Mediterranean Games

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.cijm.net/
  • In 1951 Mediterranean Games on 2011-05-25 03:27:09, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1975 Mediterranean Games on 2011-05-25 04:40:13, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1991 Mediterranean Games on 2011-05-25 05:55:55, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2005 Mediterranean Games on 2011-05-25 08:01:45, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1951 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-04 17:36:28, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1959 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-04 18:43:12, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1955 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-04 20:02:57, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1959 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-04 21:55:29, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1967 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-06 13:34:08, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1971 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-06 14:57:29, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1975 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-06 21:11:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1979 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-07 00:51:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1983 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-07 03:31:50, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1991 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-08 00:40:11, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 1993 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-08 02:13:24, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 2009 Mediterranean Games on 2011-06-17 17:57:59, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel

I see from the map that Israel is the only Mediterranean country not to take part. Why was this? 86.134.92.36 (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Mediterranean Games/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Armoreno10 (talk · contribs) 18:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article. --armoreno10 18:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I completed my review but would like a second opinion since I am new to reviewing GANs. Thanks for your help in advance! -- armoreno10 16:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Since this review has sat for a while I will give a second opinion in the hopes of moving this review to conclusion. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Meets the criteria	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Meets the criteria	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Meets the criteria	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Meets the criteria	Pass
(c) (original research)	Meets the criteria	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	See discussion point 4.	Pass
(b) (focused)	See discussion points 2 & 3.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Meets the criteria	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Meets the criteria	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Meets the criteria	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Meets the criteria	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	After 3 reviews the article passes to GA.

Discussion

1. References in introduction section. References to the statements in intro are placed in the body of the article. However, they are not in the introduction. Should the references be present in the intro? I believe so but would like a second opinion.

   IMO, there is no need for citations in lead because this section is intended to be a summary of article and thus the content should be cited within the body. Actually, "[citations are] often discouraged in the lead section". — Bill william compton^Talk 04:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Saw that Greek government-debt crisis is in the "See also" section. I am not certain of the relevance to this article and would like to remove.

   Done — Bill william compton^Talk 04:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

3. The final paragraph in the "Closer Ceremony" section discusses the stripping of Greece's ability to host the 2013 Mediterranean games. This occured in 2011, 2 years after the 2009 Mediterrean Games. I believe that this is irrelevant. Any second opinions?

   I find it relevant to the context because if article goes into less detail then it may confuse the reader and the reader may not understand why the host of 2013 Games is Turkey not Greece. And, it's a general convention (on Wikipedia) to describe the handover of hosting rights within the article of last edition of the Games. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

4. While the article mentions the cost of designing the Mediterrean Village, it does not address the total cost of the event. This should be added under the "Organisation" header.

   Unfortunately, this information is not available in any reliable online source. Mediterranean Games are not adequately covered by major English news sources. I was unable to find the information in even French, Spanish or Italian news sources. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

5. The article does not address concerns and/or controversies that occurred with the games. See examples in the 2008 Summer Olympics and 2006 Winter Olympics articles. One instance might be the Flavia Zoccari disqualification.

   I'll look into it and will get back to you. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

6. The article has a number of tense/grammar/punctuation issues. Here are examples, which I have corrected myself:

   (a) The first edition of the Mediterranean Games was held in the Egyptian city of Alexandria in 1951, attracted 734 competitors from 10 nations.

   (b) It was located in the municipality of Chieti, and was spread over an area of 18 acres (7.3 ha; 0.028 sq mi), comprising a 7 acres (2.8 ha; 0.011 sq mi) public park.

   (c) Equestrian was the only sport in which men and women compete together. (Should be competed)

   (d) Former Prime Minister of Croatia and the president of the Croatian Olympic Committee Zlatko Mateša expressed his disappointment, "it just shows, once again, that small countries have no chance of competing with the big ones". (Comma should be on the outside of the period.)

   I appreciate you taking care of all this. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion by H1nkles

• In-line refs aren't required for the Lead of most articles since the Lead is intended to be a recap of the body of the article and the assumption is that any assertions made in the lead are cited in the body of the article.

Sorry, but I'm having trouble finding a reference in lead. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't look to see if there was one I was just commenting on the point made by the reviewer since the reviewer is new to GA reviews. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

• I think it is neutral and the writing is fine for GA standards.
• I think it is a good idea to style the article after Olympics articles and attempt to include as much of the information covered in those articles though we must keep in mind that the Olympic Games are a much larger scale and have a bigger profile so some topics either are not covered as thoroughly or may not apply at all.
• It appears as though reference 102 may be a dead link, recommend investigating and fixing if necessary.

Fixed — Bill william compton^Talk 07:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• The comprehensiveness is ok though a little odd to have the cost of the athlete's village but no over all costs for the Games.
• One question I had was at the end of the Organising Committee section it says, "Aracu's decision was reportedly motivated by the bureaucratic reasons." What "bureaucratic reasons" are we talking about? That is clearly defined as I can see and should be if it's referenced here. On a similar note this resignation and dissolution appears to be a significant issue. Am I wrong? Perhaps it warrants a bit more coverage. What "urgent measures" needed to be addressed? This would speak to the comprehensive question.
• Overall I think it's pretty close to passing GA. I'd like to see a little bit more on the Organising Committee issues and that possible dead link fixed but then I think it should pass. I will leave it up to the original reviewer to make any final determinations. Best of luck to everyone. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note - I've pinged the original reviewer to encourage finalization of this nomination. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• After two "second" opinions and a note put on the reviewer's talk page requesting completion of the review it is apparent that this review is not going to be finalized by the originating reviewer. I will go ahead and wrap it up. I am confident based on all the notes here that the article meets the GA criteria and will confidently pass it to GA. Should the original reviewer wish to discuss the GAN process or this particular review please post a note on my talk page and I will be happy to reply. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 14:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion by Dom497

• According to the Manual of Style, no citations are needed in the lead/introduction of an article as long as the same information is repeated somewhere else within the article.--Dom497 (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have a question for the reviewer: Are these all the tense/grammar issues you found? If so, criteria 1a should be a "pass" rather than a "fail". If there are still some tense/grammar issues, please list them here so the nominator can fix them.--Dom497 (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I had found additional tense/grammar issues. If I list each one out, wouldn't it be more effective for me to fix them at that point? I'm a little unclear about that. Thanks for the input. --domesticenginerd 04:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That's precisely what a reviewer should be doing. Just saying they exist doesnt help much. Wizardman 14:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 102 should (but does not need to be) be fixed (it is dead; as mentioned by H1nkles).--Dom497 (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed — Bill william compton^Talk 07:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Mediterranean Games. 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/20130627052153/http://www.pescara2009.it:80/results/ENG/ZZ/ZZE130B_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXENG_country=TUR.htm to http://www.pescara2009.it/results/ENG/ZZ/ZZE130B_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXENG_country=TUR.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2009 Mediterranean Games. 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/20120215081712/http://www.pescara2009.it/results/pdf/FB/FB_C73_FB040060100001ENG.pdf to http://www.pescara2009.it/results/pdf/FB/FB_C73_FB040060100001ENG.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cijm.org.gr/en/mediteranean-games?format=pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cijm.org.gr/images/stories/pdf/Tableau_des_medailles_par_pays_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140319035039/http://www.pescara2009.it/results/ENG/ZZ/ZZE130B_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXENG_country%3DALB.htm to http://www.pescara2009.it/results/ENG/ZZ/ZZE130B_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXENG_country%3DALB.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803083919/http://www.pescara2009.it/results/ENG/ZZ/ZZE130B_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXENG_country%3DMAR.htm to http://www.pescara2009.it/results/ENG/ZZ/ZZE130B_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXENG_country%3DMAR.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pescara2009.it/results/ENG/ZZ/ZZE130B_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXENG_country%3DTUR.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)