Talk:Barbados at the 2008 Summer Olympics

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barbados at the 2008 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

review

• "The very first appearance of a uniquely Barbadian delegation at the Olympic games came two years after it declared independence from the United Kingdom when nine male athletes arrived to participated at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City, although the British colony constituted a major part of the West Indies Federation along with Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago, which sent a delegation to participate at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome." - a rather long and convoluted sentence.
• "Competitors in athletics events could qualify for the next round of competition in two ways. Qualifying by right involved ranking high enough in their heat, and qualifying by result meant ranking high enough in overall standings. Ranks shown are therefore those within each heat, not in overall standings." - I know what is meant (I think), but is there a clearer way of stating it?
• "32 athletes advanced to quarterfinals, while 30 of those finished their races; Brathwaite ranked tenth. He again advanced, this time to the semifinal round." - against MoS rules to start a sentence with a number.
• Be consistent in linking the countries. e.g. I linked Uzbekistan. Link all countries on first mention. e.g. Kazakhstan, Romania, etc. Don't discriminate because it seems like one country is more important than anotherl
• Athens Olympics in 2004 is mentioned several times, but it is never linked (that I could find).
• Will place on hold. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Everything should be set. With regards to the qualification paragraph, let me know if it remains difficult to understand. Thank you for taking on this review! --Starstriker7^(Talk) 23:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

reply

Yes the qualification paragraph is much better, and the other problems remedied. I appreciate your hard work on this article! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I added an edit.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)