Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Olympic Games/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Olympic Games

Olympic Games

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I need to have input on the article's faithfulness to MoS. I also need to have a review of the citations for credibility and format. This article once was a FA. I'd like to return it to that status. Thanks, H1nkles (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • The first thing I notice is that the image "Beijingolympicsmedals.jpg" isn't free but doesn't have a fair use rational for this article, the same goes for "Carlos-Smith.jpg". The other images all seem okay though. Basement12 (T.C) 16:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general point i'm not sure about the orderof some sections. IMO "Olympic Problems" should be below the "Olympic Movement" and maybe below symbols. Perhaps it would even be better below ceremonies, sports, medallists and cities as well, although this might be seen as burying the critism too much.
  • In looking critically at the order of the article I can see where you're coming from. It seems that the article would flow better if I moved the "Olympic Problems" section below the "Olympic Sports" heading. The issue of Amateurism vs. Professionalism is a contentious one that has caused no small controversies over the years. This would be a natural place to do the Olympic Problems. My only reservation with putting it below the Host Cities table is that I like the feeling of completion with the table. Again we are both just talking in opinions with no real right or wrong answer. I will make the move and see how it shakes out. Thanks for the suggestion. H1nkles (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Olympic forerunners section" the paragraph that begins "Greek interest in reviving the Olympic Games..." uses the term Olympic Games about six times in six lines, this doesn't read very well so perhaps replace one or two with just "the Games" or reword it to cut back.
  • The forerunners and 1986 sections use the term "Olympic Games" to refer to various prior versions and the IOC events, which could be confusing or misleading to a reader not familiar with the subject. Perhaps refering to the non IOC or ancient versions as a/the Games wherever possible would lessen that confusion?
  • Regarding the above two suggestions, I completely agree that the use of the term "Olympic Games" is overkill and is referring to several different variations of the games beyond what we know of today as The Olympic Games. The problem is that there are several editors who feel as though it is not historically accurate to call the 1896 Games the first Olympic Games. You'll see a debate on this in the article's talk page and no matter how often the section is edited it seems to flow back to trying to give credence to the early sports festivals in Greece as the actual first Olympic Games. I'll work on the wording to try and make it less confusing without jeopardizing the stability of the article. H1nkles (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Changes and Adaptations" no mention that the 1906 version was the only intercalated games is given, it currently reads as though intercalated games continue to this day.
  • Paralympics – This section is very unclear upon when the Games officially began, the link to 1960 isn't even to the Paralympics but to the Summer Olympics of that year. Also a brief mention that Guttman's event was the Stoke Mandeville Games might be good.
  • A link to the 1960 Paralympics has been added in place of the 1960 Summer Olympics wikilink. The reason it was wikilinked to the 1960 Summer Olympics is that I wanted to show that the Paralympics ran in conjunction with the Summer Games in Rome that year. But I think you make a good point that it should be linked to the 1960 Paralympics, which does talk about the fact that it was in Rome as well. H1nkles (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what i've read so far there doesn't seem to be anything glaringly wrong per MoS, dates are all unlinked and the amount of wikilinks isn't excessive. Prose is mostly pretty good and as far as I can tell references are all correct, I haven't accessed all the books used but nothing seems out of place with my own knowledge. I'll read through some more when i've got a bit of time, if you think i'm being too picky let me know (i haven't done much review work before) Basement12 (T.C) 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Basement (can I call you that?), please be picky, I know that when the article is put up for FAC there will be plenty of picky suggestions so the more I can address now the better. You've offered some good insight and changes have been made. Thanks to you and Jonel for your help. H1nkles (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are we using American or British spelling in this article? Both appear regularly throughout. At first glance I thought the American spelling predominated, so I've been changing to that. But there've been quite a few changes, so I'm beginning to wonder. This should be consistent, one way or another. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great question, I've been doing most of the copy editing recently and I'm American but admittedly I have not been consistent. My opinion is that if you have been changing to American style then let's continue so as to be consistent. No sense in changing what you've already done. Thank you for your copy edit work as well, I appreciate the help. H1nkles (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some work on this though it's hard to catch all the possible variations. I'm changing the spelling to American spelling since that is the way the edits have been going lately. If you catch a discrepency please feel free to change it. H1nkles (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


H1nkles, you can call me whatever you like, no guarantee i'll respond though :). Here are a few more things i've noticed then (sorry some of them i could do myself but i'll list them all here first as its easier to do it in one go);

  • Youth Olympic Games - this is quite pedantic ad might just be me but whole section seems to have a lot of very short sentences so it doesn't flow particularly well, could it be reworded slightly to make this better?
  • Olympic Movement
    • "One of the criticisms leveled at the IOC is their favoritism of host cities from the West" could do with referencing
  • I've reworded the opening sentence (though I'm not real happy with it) and removed the comments about infrastructure improvements and other economic issues as it doesn't really apply to this heading, and the economic benefits/problems with hosting the Olympics is really an individual host city issue. The Olympics nearly bankrupted Montreal but that wasn't the IOC's fault as much as mismanagement on the part of the organizing committee. The opening paragraph in this section now is really based on observation of the number of host cities selected from the western world vs. the eastern world. It isn't cited other than the internal wikilink to Olympic host cities. Do you think this is ok or does it really look like original research? There is an intrinsic value judgement in that it is mentioned here in the "Criticism" section, which could be seen as POV. I like the statistic but it is internally generated and I can't find an external source to cite. Perhaps I should remove it altogether. H1nkles (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands it is a simple statement of fact, not a criticism so it should probably be removed. I couldn't find any sources for general bias in the selection procedure, only a few for specific cases where accusations of accepting bribes etc were levelled at IOC members, which is already included further down. I'd suggest moving the statistics to the host cities section where they can stand as a simple observation, no different to counting the number of times a country has hosted, without a need for referencing. Basement12 (T.C) 16:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Four European groups have organized the International Network Against Olympic Games and Commercial Sports to oppose their cities' bids for future Olympic Games" - which cities?
  • I'm tempted to remove this altogether. The source is the network's own website, no external indication that anyone takes these people seriously at all. Unless there's more out there to support this group being important, we're already giving undue weight to them. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olympic symbols
    • "espoused" seems an odd, and potentially confusing, word to use here

More may well follow at some stage :) Basement12 (T.C) 22:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Amateurism and professionalism section has some issues with tone. It could use some work towards a neutral presentation of the early history of the issue in the Olympic movement. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know if neutrality is the issue or if it is just very cumbersome. The whole section is very poorly written in my opinion and needs to be edited significantly. I'll put some work into it and see if I can make it more "professional" and neutral. H1nkles (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some copy editing and in reading the whole section I feel as though the last paragraph, which is substantial, should be removed. It does not fit in this section, or any other section. It is about the current restrictions on advertising at the Olympics and has a reference to the issue facing the original Dream Team on the medal stand in 1992. I feel good about deleting it but if there is disagreement then the edit can be reverted. H1nkles (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Medals per country section has a feeling of original research. It could really use more sources to support its contentions. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC) :*I will work on these suggestions tomorrow when I have some time. H1nkles (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've reviewed the Medals Per Country section and I feel as though it should be removed completely for the following reasons: It does feel like original research, it doesn't add appreciably to the article, it's poorly cited and the article is too long. I will remove the entire heading. If you disagree please give your opinions and then we can always revert. H1nkles (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of it should be replaced. Specifically a mention that the IOC doesn't recognise a table or a winner of the Games, but that they appear in other media and NOCs use them as a meaure of success beyond the raw data of medals won. Perhaps a mention of nations whose athletes have won most medals, or that have finished in the top ten medal winners since 1996 as before, with a "Main article link" to the All-time Olympic Games medal table? Also mention that when the IOC do publish a tally it ranks by gold medals not total and link to Olympic medal table. I'd suggest adding it to "Champions and Medalists" rather than a seperate section though. Basement12 (T.C) 15:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'll work on that today. I'm paranoid about the length of this article. I've been reviewing the semi-automated bot review of the article and one of its criticisms is the length. I like your idea of adding it to the "Champions and Medalists" section. H1nkles (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Olympic_Games/archive2&oldid=244096744"