Talk:Suriname at the 1960 Summer Olympics/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Arconning (talk · contribs) 13:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 19:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This looks an interesting article, and a recent Did you know currently sitting in the Olympics holding area. A cursory glance shows it is likely to be close to meeting the Good Article criteria. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of adequate length, with 1,036 words of readable prose.
• The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 152 words.
• Authorship is 95% from the nominator with contributions from 13 other editors.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article and a Did you know nomination.

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

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

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Add a comma after "but this did not occur" as the clauses are independent.
     • Where exactly is this?
       • Not sure actually. This looks unnecessary.
   • Change "They did not qualify to the Olympics" to "…for the Olympics".
     •  Done.
   • Consider "The nation ultimately qualified one athlete". Is it the nation that qualified Esajas?
     • Nation refers to the team itself in this context, yes.
   • Consider rewording "traveled to Rome through a flight at the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol".
     •  Done, reworded. :)
   • Consider rewording the section describing what happened when Esajas entered the stadium. For example, "He was stated to be relaxed". Who stated this?
     •  Done.
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • Suggest combining the three paragraphs in the lead to one or two as per MOS:LEAD.
     •  Done
   • Please remove the superfluous capitalisations of "Games" in the lead and first paragraph as per MOS:CAPS.
     •  Not done, Games is referring to the Olympic "Games" which is a proper noun. It's used interchangeably with Olympics. Some examples on my own works are Kiribati at the 2020 Summer Olympics and Haiti at the 1924 Summer Olympics.
       • Please note there is no exception for the word "games" in MOS:SPORTCAPS, which does speak of capitalising "Olympics", and "games" is lowercase in WP:OLYMOSNAT, such as in the criterion "The name of the games (eg Winter Olympics)". Suggest there may need to be consensus on such an exception so it would be appropriate to raise in the appropriate channels. In the meantime, I feel it is legitimate to reword.
   • Consider the quote in light of MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Note it is repeated in the text. Consider embedding the quote more in the narrative and removing the repeat.
     • I removed the quotebox instead, if this is what you're referring to?
       • That seems reasonable. It is also likely to help reduce even further the risk of copy violation.
   • It seems to otherwise comply with the Manuals of Style.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Please confirm that Olympedia is a reliable source.
     • It is a reliable source, it is owned by the International Olympic Committee and provides in depth information about the results itself. Other Olympic-related articles also utilize this site.
       • Thank you. Unfortunately, the fact that other wikipedia articles use a source does not necessarily mean that it is reliable. Can you please confirm that it is independent?
   • A cursory scan of Google books and, especially Dutch-language media (e.g, [[1]], shows a number of other sources that may be reliable.
   • Please check the weblink to "This Olympian Misses His Event".
     • Checked? I've added the maker of the newspaper, as well as the agency that provided the news.
       • Thank you. Please add the appropriate url-access= tag. More information is at WP:URLACCESS.
   • Note the permanent link http://hdl.handle.net/10648/a9b77418-d0b4-102d-bcf8-003048976d84.
     • Replaced, if that's what you're looking for.
   • Spot checks confirm Boerboom 2016 and Maraniss 2008 cover the topic.

   it contains no original research;

   • All relevant statements have inline citations.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig and Turnitin gives a 16.7% chance of copyright violation, which means it is unlikely. The most overlap is with the article in the Sydney Morning Herald and mainly relates to the quote.

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • The article is compliant.

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

   • The article is compliant.

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced and covers the controversy well.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

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

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • The images have appropriate CC tags.

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • Images are appropriate. Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text for accessibility.
     • I have done this.

@Arconning: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 09:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• @Simongraham: I believe I've done most of the comments? Let me know if you have any more problems and I'll fix them as soon as possible. Arconning (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Arconning: Excellent work. Please see my responses above. simongraham (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

    @Simongraham Done. I can't say that Olympedia is independent as it is connected to the IOC as its owner, however its claims were made prior to the acquisition, if that helps? I'm happy to talk more as I'm very eager for the passing of this article. :) Arconning (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

    • • @Arconning: That seems reasonable. Overall, I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.