Talk:Dominica at the 2012 Summer Olympics

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dominica at the 2012 Summer Olympics. 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/20110428023134/http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Statistics/Standards/05/97/61/20110415082248_httppostedfile_EntryStandards_London2012_24135.pdf to http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Statistics/Standards/05/97/61/20110415082248_httppostedfile_EntryStandards_London2012_24135.pdf

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) 01:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dominica at the 2012 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ravendrop (talk · contribs) 22:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article shortly. This is my first good article review, so please bear with me and let me know if I've made any glaring errors. Thanks! Ravendrop 22:54, 2 May 2017 (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.	I made a few minor copy edits. Specifically to clarify the closing ceremony flag bearer as "held it" felt awkward.
	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.	Why are the two DNF athletes linked in one note and not the other? Seems inconsistent. Also, I think the athletes in the women's 200m were DNS not DNF. Corrected. MWright96 (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC) The athletes for one event are still mentioned, while the athletes for the other are not. Is there a reason for this? Ravendrop 19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC) This form of notes had been used in other Country Olympic GAs but I do not have a problem of adding the names to the other note for consistency. MWright96 (talk) 12:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Why is Dominica at the Pan American in the see also? Other than being the previous international event, its doesn't seem to have any relevance as no athlete qualified via their performance at the event. Removed MWright96 (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
	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.	Overall looks very good, just on hold until my two questions above are addressed. @Ravendrop: Both points that have been raised have been dealt with. MWright96 (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)