Talk:Gibraltar at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gibraltar at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vibhijain (talk · contribs) 16:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

A good article, and should be a GA with some tweaking

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• MoS suggests not to have bold wikilinks.

Done

• competed at the >> competed in the

What's wrong with this? It's grammatically correct.

• "which is responsible for the Commonwealth Games and Commonwealth Youth Games in Gibraltar." - This can be rather moved to the background section.

It's already there. Lead is supposed to be a summary of whole article.

• "The Association selected ... different sports." Needs copy-editing. I would prefer "The Association selected a delegation of five male competitors, who participated in eleven events of three different sports."

Done

• "semifinal of 200 m" - 200 m what???

Done

• where he >> in which he

Done

• athletics competitor - competitors should be plural

Done

• Tell that Frank Warwick is a cyclist

Done

• It seems that Sanderson participated in five events, and not six

Done

• Link British Columbia

Done

• 23.25 seconds, 23.25 minutes, 23.25 hours, or 23.25 days? :P

Done

• Link the sports to Athletics at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games, Cycling at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games and Swimming at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games

That will be overlinking as there are already corresponding "See also" in each section.

• The pictograms in the section headings should come first before the sport name

Done

• Add the key for Q

Done

• Link the athletes at least once.

Athletes are non-notable as per Wikipedia standards of notability. No point of linking their names with a red-link.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• "The country has ... since then." is unsourced

Done

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good luck!!! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Vibhi. — Bill william compton^Talk 17:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Article passed. Congrats! :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gibraltar at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth 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/20110912014353/http://results.cygpune2008.com:80/allcountries.html to http://results.cygpune2008.com/allcountries.html

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) 18:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Gibraltar at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

All citations presently in this article are primary and are not independent of the event. That means it fails criteria 2b and 2c. --Izno (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

2b and 2c do not demand that sources not be secondary and neither do they request independent sources. That is more WP:N province. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

One demands that the article adhere to WP:NOR and the other WP:RS (directly) and WP:V (indirectly via item 2 or through the link in RS). I think you would be hard-pressed to suggest that one of the three does not say that this article is way on the wrong side of what we expect of good articles given its excessive reliance on primary sources. WP:NPOV is also relevant, so that's criterion #4 also. I could also DQ it due to tagging it with {{primary sources}}, which would trigger the quick fail criterion #3. --Izno (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The reference to "independence" is at best tangential in either V or RS, and NOR explicitly disclaims that independence is a requirement. I have no particular opinion on this article, I was mostly commenting because a lot of people seem to take NOR as meaning "primary sources bad" and this seemed to be yet another instance of that attitude in action. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources are bad because they have an apparent conflict of interest. That doesn't seem particularly tangential to me. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between not being independent or primary and having a conflict of interest. See Party and person for example. This is a common misconception and part of the reason why I am commenting here is to discourage people from repeating it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.