Talk:India at the 2020 Summer Olympics/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 12:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 13:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Magentic Manifestation, I'll take this on. I'll flag the two Sportskeeda sources upfront, most else looks good. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Rollinginhisgrave I have gone ahead and replaced the SK and TOI sources as a preemptive measure as they have turned up in other discussions on RS. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Prose and content

• The lede will need to be expanded, but India made its official debut at the 1900 Summer Olympics in Paris and has appeared in every edition of the Summer Olympics since 1920. shouldn't be in there. Agreed on the expansion part. Have expanded the lead with more on participation + medalists. Removed the second part and tweaked the next line. Y
• However, by this time, the nation had made its first Summer Olympics debut in the 1900 Olympics at Paris and had already competed in two more Summer Olympic Games in 1920, and 1924. I think a quick, half sentence explanation of this would really help. Have split them and expanded a bit. Let me know if you had something else in your mind
• Originally scheduled to take place from 24 July to 9 August 2020, the games were postponed to 23 July to 8 August 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The lede should be summarising the body, not copying it. Give either a paraphrase. The sentence is already simple, not sure what more could be done. Only the dates may be eliminated. Lede needs to be a summary of the article but it does not mean that sentences need to be paraphrased in the literal sense as it has to be meaningful as standalone sentences.
• Fix the extra row near the bottom of the Competitors table. Y
• after Abhinav Bindra in 2008 after X won gold in Y in 2008 Y
• with the team cut Y
• and the first since 2000 the first medal? Y
• As per the qualification system drawn by the World Archery rw, awkward, full name of org etc. shortened Y
• NOCs that qualify teams for a particular gender... filled by individual qualification tournaments overly long, wordy shortened Y
• link recurve Y
• Deepika Kumari was the only Indian archer... Thailand in November 2019. huge sentence, very wordy split + reworded Y
• The Indian archery squad was officially announced on 8 March 2021, with the men's team consisting of Das, Jadhav, Rai and, woman archer Kumari Why do you repeat this information after establishing it in this paragraph? India secured a team spot. Individual archers can be decided by the NOC later, hence the repetition to indicate that the same set of archers were sent. Have removed the names in the first sentence.
• Jadhav was the highest placed India highest placed India already changed Y
• with Jadhav and Kumari combining to be ranked at the same spot in the mixed team event same spot as before? Or also at 9th? specified explicitly to avoid confusion Y
• India overcame use more encyclopedic language overcame is non encyclopedic? Anyways, have replaced with defeated. Y
• the round of 16 16th round? The rounds are officially named as round of 16, round of 32 etc. I do not see an issue here. What do you suggest?
• after they overcame same as above already changed Y
• the round of 32 as above, I can see the same issue persisting through the article same as above.
• in a closely fought contest changed Y
• I can see you've changed back Birendra Prasad Baishya to Biren. Can you tell me why? The source calls him Birenda, the wiki page is under Birenda and Google shows results for Birenda when Biren is entered.
• who qualified for the Games -> to qualify
• Indian duo of Sandeep
• secure qualification for the Games -> qualify

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've stepped back to look more broadly at this article. It is quite difficult to read in the section I'm looking at, given it's writing "Name" qualified for "Event" with/by "X time/Y event" again and again and again. It would work better in a table, and stricter adherence to summary style would be better observed, particularly in an article of this size. This applies to other parts of the article as well, particularly when information repeats what's described immediately after in a table. This would drastically improve readability. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the prose becomes particularly tedious for sports with a large number of competitors. There are two parts in every prose section:

1. Qualification: The first part of qualification needs to have a summary of the terms for understanding of the reader followed by the qualification.
   1. The qualification part explained in prose will have a lot of x qualified for y particularly for events like athletics. There is no repetition of this fact as the table captures only the name of the events against the athletes and not how they qualified.
   2. For the sections which are longer such as athletics, this can be moved to the respective sub-sections say track men/women and field, which would improve readability. I am not particularly in favor of putting it in a new table as this will add additional tables in an article already full of them (unless it can be incorporated into the existing ones, which will be a first for such articles).
   3. I do agree that for events like boxing, the names + events would be like a simple repetition of what is in the tables, so can be simplified to a summary.
   4. For events like archery/rowing/shooting, as the qualification entitles quota places and athletes are named after, I don't see an alternate to it rather than mentioning x achieved a quota for y event followed by a final list of athletes for the Games.
   5. Past information on the athletes qualified can be added as required, but would in fact expand the prose section more.
2. Main event: For the main rounds, I agree to your point that there is a lot of places where some of the information is repeated in prose form followed by a table, which essentially does not add much value. Any additional information can only be captured in prose form say the detailing of a particular match or an opponent, which is essentially the whole prose part is for (or else it would rather become a list of tables!).

While there are quite a number of GA articles in this space, most follow different formats, depending on the editor/reviewer. There are articles which go at length explaining each athletes profile and articles which do not even capture basic information with very short with 1-2 line summaries. Probably, it is a first for a NOC with 100+ competitors, so essentially there needs to be a balance in capturing the essential information without neither repeating too much nor being bare bones.

Let me know your thoughts! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your points overall. It does certainly follow the trends set by smaller articles, but as we get bigger, they need to lean more into summary style. Imagine a 35000 word United States at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Given this article covers 7x less athletes, it is reasonable to say it would be able to be 7x smaller than a 10 000 word article covering that subject. Even including extra information, making it twice as detailed, the article would be ~3500 words, which is half of what it currently is. I would like to see some of the stuff you propose being implemented, and then reviewing from there. I do think if you look at a paragraph like this:

"In the field events, Neeraj Chopra and Shivpal Singh attained the qualification standard of 85 meters (m) for the men's javelin throw event with throws of 87.86 m and 85.47 m respectively at the ACNW League Meeting held at Potchefstroom, South Africa in January 2021.[45][46] Murali Sreeshankar made the cut for the men's long jump after he surpassed the qualification standard of 8.22 m with a 8.26 m jump in the Federation Cup event in March 2021. In the same competition, Kamalpreet Kaur breached the Olympic qualification standard of 63 m with a throw of 65.06 m in the women's discus throw. Seema Punia achieved the qualification standard for the same event with a throw of 63.72 on the deadline day on 29 June 2021. Tajinderpal Singh Toor qualified for the men's short put after achieving the Olympic standard with an Asian record throw of 21.49 m in the Indian Grand Prix event in June 2021. Annu Rani qualified for the women's javelin throw event by virtue of her world ranking. India also entered relay teams in the men's and Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Mixed 4 × 400 metres relay It is very very boring for the reader, given it is name, qualification, attainment, location 5+ times in a row. This is where you use tables. The prose should be focused on notable performances and analysis. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Closing, no activity for a few weeks. Feel free to renominate if you think I've made a mistake here, or bring it up in a more centralized discussion space. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2024 (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.