Talk:Israel at the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 23:50, 26 December 2016 (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. |
| |
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. |
| |
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. |
Put information about the flagbearer somewhere else, not just the lead.
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
I know it is not required to follow the exact same format as other articles, however, I think that other Olympic GA's are more in depth. See Chad at the 2016 Summer Olympics for an example. To be specific: You should go into detail of the events themselves. Right now there is just a table to look at; the event itself is not described at all. Done Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Section that require further expansion before article is passed: | |
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. |
@DatGuy: I have completed my assessment. If you disagree with any of the above, please let me know, I am very open to suggestions, and my word is of course not the final say. I would rather you discuss items you disagree with than be a 'yes man.' Let me know via here or IRC. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Kees08: Totally forgot I even nominated this. I'll work from bottom to the top. Also, first thing I notice is that the website does have an English option. On the top-left there is the flag of GB. Finally, I believe that NewsWeek is a tabloid/not known for fact-checking? Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- Could I please have more than 7 days? I am on vacation, and especially things such as Christmas and New Year slowed it down. Thanks. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I am in no rush. Kees08 (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Kees08: Is there anything else in the article that needs attention or correction? Nimrodbr (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Nimrodbr: Added cn tags. I'll do a ce on the article and verify the rest of the citations verify the information they are supposed to, and we'll be done. Kees08 (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Also need to move the citations from the intro paragraph to be in the article instead. Kees08 (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think I finished. Nimrodbr (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- All is good, the very last thing that needs done is the citations in the lead need to be moved to the article and removed from the lead. Kees08 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Nimrodbr (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- All is good, the very last thing that needs done is the citations in the lead need to be moved to the article and removed from the lead. Kees08 (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think I finished. Nimrodbr (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Kees08: Is there anything else in the article that needs attention or correction? Nimrodbr (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the hard work performed by everyone on this, what a big effort. The article grew by several times in both size and quality. Kees08 (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)