Talk:Sri Lanka at the 2012 Summer Olympics

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sri Lanka at the 2012 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 20:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

Main review

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose):

Overall: Was going to make suggestions, but there were enough issues that I ended up doing a substantial amount of copy editing and restructuring. Some other issues/questions are below, section by section.

Background

• I've copy edited and restructured this paragraph, which was fairly disjointed. Two things remain:
• First sentence is a run-on. Should be two, if not three, sentences.
  • Have split the sentence into three. MWright96 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• The second paragraph says that some athletes were selected through wildcards, but doesn't say which ones. This should be indicated.
  • I've moved that particular piece of text away from the background section

Athletics

• "second appearance" — When was the first, & what result?
  • Added. MWright96 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Badminton

• "as he was ranked 47th" — What was needed to qualify? 48th? 200th?
  • Clarified. MWright96 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Thilini Jayasinghe was the oldest" — So how hold was she?
  • She was 27 at the time. MWright96 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Jayasinghe gained ... of 109." — This sentence is confusing. Why did the withdrawal of a South African player give a spot to a Sri Lankan player?
  • The changes I've made should make that fact somewhat clearer to understand. MWright96 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Shooting

• "He entered the games by using a wildcard ... Samarakoon was handed a re-allocated quota place" — So he was a wildcard, or a quota, entry?
  • Quota, should have made this clearer before hand. MWright96 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• "those shooters placed joint fourth to eighth" — If they all add the same score, wouldn't they all be tied for fourth, not placed fourth through eighth? Also, were these the ones with the lowest scores to advance?
  • Clarified.. MWright96 (talk)
    • Having looked at the standings in the source, apparently some people with the same score qualified, and some didn't, so it appears that they weren't actually tied. That's not relevant to the article here, though, so I've reworded to just " He scored nine fewer points than the lowest-scoring competitors to advance."
      • Looks good to me. MWright96 (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Swimming

• "a universality place" — What's this? Quota? Wildcard? Something else?
  • A universality place is a quota. MWright96 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Still not clear in the article.
      • Actually I got my information wrong. A universality place is a wildcard. MWright96 (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
• "and underwent physiotherapy" — Before or after the Olympics?
  • Before the Games. 22:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

b (MoS):

Appears compliant with MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references):

References appear appropriate

b (citations to reliable sources):

References appear reliable

c (OR):

No OR detected

d (No evidence of plagiarism or copyright violations):

No apparent copyvios

3. It is broad in its scope.

a (major aspects):

Article covers the major aspects

b (focused):

Article is focused

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy Article is neutral

5. It is stable Article is stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

Images are appropriately tagged

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

First image (flag) needs caption; all images need alt text

7. Overall:

Pass/Fail: MWright96, very comprehensive, and generally in good shape. I've made a bunch of prose edits, and have mentioned some further issues above, which shouldn't be too hard to fix. Other than that, just a few small issues with the images (caption/alt text). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Thanks for taking on the review and making the copy-edits to the article. I myself should have made the necessary changes you requested. MWright96 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MWright96, almost there. Three comments are above. The two main issues withstanding are related to the qualification. You give a good explanation of what a wildcard is, but not what a quota spot is. I think you should add one sentence explaining what it is in "Background", after the sentence ending in "one of each gender, as wildcards." Second, the "Qualification" subsection is completely redundant, and copied nearly word for word from "Background". I suggest deleting it entirely, the information isn't needed in two places. Also, the first image (flag) still needs a caption and alt text. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Okay hopefully that is all the issues sorted. A check over with my description of a quota place will do nicely. MWright96 (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, MWright96. I'm still a bit confused by the wildcard/quota situation. First, in "Swimming," you say that "Unamboowe qualified for the games by using a universality place (wildcard)" (similar language regarding Udugampola). Is a "universality place" the exact same thing as a "wildcard," regardless of sport? If so, you should clarify that in the "Background" section (e.g., "one of each gender, using universality places, also known as wildcards"), not the "Swimming" section. Second, it's unclear how "athletes [meet] the necessary requirements" to get a quota—are these based on meeting quantitative standards (e.g., finish an event under 2 minutes), or based on the discretion of a team or the International Olympic Committee? I'm not going to hold up the review on this second point, but if you take this article to FAC—where I think you would stand a strong chance—you should make sure that this is clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Usernameunique (talk · contribs) Have now clarified on the points you raised. MWright96 (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, MWright96. Passing the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)