Talk:South Sudan at the 2016 Summer Olympics

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:South Sudan at the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 07:45, 30 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.	Recommend paragraph break here: ... she set a new personal best of 26.99. Kenyi took up... From: He ran for Iowa State University during his college career and was noted as an All-American. To: He ran for Iowa State University during his college career and was selected as a member of the All-American team.
	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.	Citations 6, 8, 11, 12, 14 redirects to a place without the proper information.
	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.	An external link to the commercial would be good, if one exists.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	For this, does any source indicate why he didn't show?: He was slated to make South Sudan's debut at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics, but failed to appear for the event.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Samsung's statement on the matter should at least be in the article. Anything else to balance out the accusation would be good.
	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.

Thanks for the review! I'm surprised that so many references died in the span of a month, but I'll hunt down replacements and try to get all of these addressed by the end of the day, though New Years might interfere. Canadian Paul 15:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kees08: Okay, I think that I have addressed all of these except 3b and 4. For 3b, I searched for an explanation when I originally worked on the article and couldn't find one. I looked around even more this time and couldn't find one again, so unfortunately that one will probably have to be left as is. As for 4, I don't see a problem with balance: an accusation was made, Samsung denied it, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport rejected his appeal, which suggests that there was not sufficient merit to/evidence of the accusation for it to be true. I could copy the official statement from Samsung (it's in the article) if you think it would help balance, but I'm not sure if that would run afoul of WP:FAIRUSE. Thoughts? Canadian Paul 19:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing those things. I think the article is good as is. Passing now. Kees08 (talk) 03:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)