Talk:Marshall Islands at the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 22:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   However, the Marshall Islands consider The Marshall Islands, however, failed or The delegation, however, failed

    Done --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

   under Spain's influence a direct Wikilink to the Spanish East Indies would probably be better here than piping.

   I'm not sure I agree, it would then change the entire meaning of the sentence. It goes from implying Spanish control/influince to a geographical location. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

   Is there something I am missing here? The main Marshall Islands article claimed that it was a formal part of the Spanish East Indies since the 16th century. To me this looks like a legal jurisdiction and it seems better just to state it plainly than to allude to something like influence. I'm also not an expert here, so am more than open to listening to your views on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

   during World War II, and were... breaking up this sentence would help the article flow better

    Done --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

   The addition of the Marshall Islands brought the total number of IOC-recognized National Olympic Committees to 203 Its unclear to me if 203 is the current number or if it was the number at the time they were recognized. Tweaking the wording would provide clarity to the reader.

    Done --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

   two athletes, one male and one female for concision you can just say one male and one female

    Done--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

   send two swimmers, one male and one female concision, see above.

    Done--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All sources check out and have been verified

   C. It contains no original research:

   Did a second round through the sources, and source 18 doesn't appear to mention the results from the snatch and the clean & jerk. Just the total. The number add up, but where are you getting them from? TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig is picking up some copying on the first sentence, but this is located here regarding Russia at the Olympics, and it appears to be a Wikipedia mirror. Nothing you have to fix, just noting it for the review. Otherwise, nothing else came up in Earwig, and I couldn't find any close paraphrasing or copying when doing spot checks.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Very good. Very close to meeting all of the criteria. Just a few changes to the prose and you should be good to go. I'll likely have a second go over it for any additional stylistic things and to see if I missed anything, but I don't see any major issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

   @TonyBallioni:  Done with the one exception noted above. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

   Cameron, see my responses above. The prose changes you made look fine. I have a question on sourcing noted in 2c. Overall everything looks good, and if you can address those two comments it'll pass. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Cameron, just going through my old contributions to see if I had anything outstanding and I remembered this. Not a big deal if you are busy IRL since you haven't bene on in a week. Just ping me whenever you are back on or have addressed the issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Cameron, are you still working on this or would you prefer I close the review out? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: I am! I just am having finding the source for that information I'm probably just going to change it to reflect the total score. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
      • @TonyBallioni:  Done Found a source! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Cameron, looks good on the results for the competitions, but I didn't see the ranks in the source. I think mentioning her overall rank would be acceptable here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
          • @TonyBallioni:  Done --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Cameron, I've passed it. Good job! TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)