Talk:Saint Lucia at the 2008 Summer Olympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 00:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Stating criteria for reference: A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Well written

• Lead summarises body. Nothing found in the lead is not found elsewhere, and cited in those locations. The prose is clear, concise and easy to read. Made one or two minor fixes to add a bit more clarity. No spelling errors that I can see. --LauraHale (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Appears to match with the manual of style. Tables appear to be used appropriately and in compliance with the manual of style. --LauraHale (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

• Obligatory plagiarism check: [1][2][3] [4] No concerns. Where phrases appear, the are names or events and cannot be modified with out changing the meaning.

• References are all properly formatted. They are consistently formatted. There are no broken links. --LauraHale (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sources match the text and the information in the article is verifiable. --LauraHale (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Article appears broad in coverage. Would be nice to know if there was any welcome home recognition for the athletes, but as none medaled, this may not be necessary. It might also be nice to have additional information about television coverage and funding related to sending St Lucian athletes t the games. The article adequately covers the athletes who competed. Inclined to give this a pass, but if that information is available, it would be nice to included it, especially if the article may go further. --LauraHale (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I double-checked for sources (I even checked Newsbank) and I couldn't really find anything useful. I'm sure that there is something, but it most certainly is escaping my grasp at the moment. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

• Article appears neutral. The article does not give WP:UNDUE to any sections. It does not appear to suggest bias in the quality of the country's performance at the games. --LauraHale (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Stable

• Article appears stable, with very few edits. --LauraHale (talk)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Images appear to have the proper copyright. I removed the pictograms because they cannot be read by people with screenreaders. Please confirm that specific images have been looked for as they pertain to this nation and its athletes at the games, and that none were found. Once done, will give this section a pass. --LauraHale (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I took another look. I couldn't find anything on the Commons. Of all the Internet images I saw, I couldn't confirm the copyright statuses of the images that weren't listed as "All Rights Reserved". I could contact Saint Lucia's Olympic committee and try to gain OTRS permissions for images, but it is a lot of red tape in really unfamiliar territory; I'm not quite sure even where to start. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Overall

A comment or two regarding scope, confirmation that no copyright usable images are available for the article, and we're good to rock and roll. :) --LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. It was really thorough! :) Let me know if there is anything else. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Good to go then. :) Will pass. --LauraHale (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)