Talk:Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 27, 2009Good article nomineeListed
July 15, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
September 12, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
April 16, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 2, 2009.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 2, 2011.
Current status: Good article

Further pared down editing[edit]

I had removed the "Ad" tag a few weeks ago when I reduced some of the flowery writing on this page. I have gone through the sections I didn't hit earlier. Although I deleted some material, it was mostly unneeded refs, over used phrases, or primarily, info on the general bidding process that is covered (and which was cut and paste) from the 2016 Olympic Bids page. There were also some sections, specifically in the venues section that were written at different times and needed more intergration, eg introducing the same material twice. If an editor thinks I have made some errors, please let me know, no harm was intended.-Cbradshaw (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Listed[edit]

I'm thinking this can't be a confirmed list of the sports (in the locations section). Both baseball and softball haven't been officially added back to the Olympic program, while Rollerskating hasn't been put on the program at all (though I know it may be a possibility). And will futsal be a demonstration sport or what? Bettyfizzw1 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. Those are the venues from the 2007 Pan American Games, which will use most of the same venues. That should be clearer in the article, no doubt! Thanks for pointing it out-03:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It should talk about having it duiring the winter, because they are south of the equater[edit]

someonw should research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.149.113 (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It already does. There is a section addressing the dates and how they were chosen. Anyway, it's a moot point as the weather in Rio is tropical so the winter is not too different than the summer. Cbradshaw (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class Review[edit]

Hello everyone, I would propose a structure for the article, which could be used in other articles on Olympic bids. Some parts are already successful present in the article, some were implemented but need to review, and other parts should complete the article.

This will organize better the article and be more aesthetically beautiful. The bytes required above do not include the load of references, only the raw text. Detailed information on Politics, Finance and Infrastructure will be moved to the main articles: "Politics of Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid", "Finance of Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid" and "Infrastructure of Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid". Regards; Felipe Menegaz 03:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Here are the changes you requested. I've deleted a whole wodge of hugely content-free self-promoting 'ad talk' from the 'bidding' section, leaving only the actual facts mentioned. Most of the entire 'Marketing' section was removed as it was also puffery with bad grammar. 'Political support' merged with 'politics'. More to come. Sorry, but you asked for my edits, so here they come. Natecull (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second edit. I've trimmed the rest of the page except the 'Accommodation' and 'Transport' sections which still severely need summarisation. Good luck from here on. Don't make the page bigger than it is now. Natecull (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You helped a lot. Thank you very much for the editions. Felipe Menegaz 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate File[edit]

Is it possible that a three-volume, 568-page candidature file be 2.5-metre tall and weigh 700 kilos? I hardly believe so. Even though it is what appears in the source, I'm more inclined to say that these figures are for the stack of 100 copies of the Candidature File, requested by the IOC. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments[edit]

Lead
  • "Rio de Janeiro was chosen over São Paulo by the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) as the national postulant city for the XXXI Olympiad in September 1, 2006, starting a process of ten years until the Olympics." - This is fairly nonsensical to me. Selecting Rio did not start a process of ten years to the Olympics, the passage of time starts this. I might suggest simply ending this sentence at "...in September 1, 2006."
    •  Done Change from "starting a process of ten years until the Olympics" to "during its Annual Assembly". Felipe Menegaz 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, "in September 1" reads awkwardly, as "on September 1" is more normal to me. Is the use of "in" rather than "on" for dates common usage for South American speakers of English? If so, then this is fine
    • Should I change everything from "in" to "on"? Felipe Menegaz 16:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only if "in" is not common English usage where you are. It reads awkwardly to me as it is, but at the same time, so do many Britishisms when I read articles in UK English.
Candidature process
  • "The Rio de Janeiro 2016 Candidate File is 2.50 m (8 ft 2 in) in height, and 700 kilograms (1,500 lb) in weight" I admire the attention to detail, but is this statement really necessary?
    • Well, this statement should be removed in the amendments of October 2, 2009, when will be replaced with more relevant information about the Election Results. Felipe Menegaz 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Candidature details
  • "In May 4, 2009, the ROCOG accused the Madrid Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (MOCOG) to sent a spy to Rio de Janeiro during the inspection of the candidature, considering filing a formal ethics complaint with the IOC." This statement begins in the past-tense, and ends in the future-tense. I would imagine that at this point, the ROCOG is no longer considering filing a complant - either they did, or they did not. If they did not, I'd simply change it to say they "considered filing a complaint." If they did file one, however, could you include what came of that?
    •  Done Change from "considering filing a formal ethics complaint with the IOC" to "considered filing a formal ethics complaint with the IOC". Felipe Menegaz 16:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what exactly passed. The ROCOG and the MOCOG have not spoken officially about the case, and the media has not developed the story. So I think that there was no formal complaint with the IOC. Felipe Menegaz 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • Dates should not be linked per MOS:UNLINKDATES unless the date articles themselves are relevant.
  • You've done a fantastic job of presenting all of the positive aspects of Rio's bid. However, I do find the general absence of the drawbacks and concerns to be interesting. While the crime issue is given a brief mention, I would be interested in knowing why Rio scored as low as it did based on their Application File. Is it possible to expand this a little? I will admit that a quick Google search has not proven fruitful, so there may well not be any great possibility for expansion.
    • There is no great controversy about the candidature of Rio de Janeiro. There is no kind of protest against the bid or popular opposition. The two major controversies are duly mentioned in the article: between the IOC, the ROCOG and the DOCOG (the choice of Rio de Janeiro over Doha despite the evaluation scores), and between the ROCOG and the MOCOG (the spying scandal). In addition, flaws in technical issues such as safety and transportation should be detailed in the main article: Infrastructure of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Felipe Menegaz 16:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources and images look good.

Overall, however, very detailed, and well written. As I noted, I will be gone for the weekend, but I have little doubt that I will be passing this when I return. Cheers, Resolute 15:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All now looks good. As such, I am passing this as a GA. Resolute 22:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it towards the highest quality status. The history of this article includes two past reviews, one that awarded the B-Class status and another that awarded the Good Article status. Now, I am nominating the article for a new review looking forward the Featured Article status. Regards, Felipe Menegaz 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Wikipedia:Peer review/Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/archive1.

Gratuitous feedback[edit]

  • of which some 1,700 are located in apart-hotels in the city and more than 13,000 in hotels throughout Rio de Janeiro - are the city and Rio the same thing in this sentence? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Felipe Menegaz 00:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popular support[edit]

"Rio de Janeiro has full political backing and strong popular support."

The last part of the sentence is not true. Many Brazilians were against Rio's candidacy, argumenting that it was too much money to be spent by an underdeveloped country which still has enourmous social problems to address (hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent only with Rio's campaign). As the chances of Rio to win the bid were low, these critics were not voicing their concerns actively. But after the result was announced, the criticism is becoming more and more apparent on the press. Many believe there will be countless cases of corruption involving the huge sums of money involved (around US$ 15 billion just to start off). Companies dealing with the government in Brazil (in any level, from local authorities to the federal government) usually pay to the elected politicians between 10% and 20% in every contract in order to be favored, and because of that most contracts are overvaluated by this amount or even more. This practice is so deeply rooted in Brazilian culture that no one really believes it can be eliminated in an easy way (and this practice also explains the full political backing to the Rio's proposal). The article would benefit from having such contrary opinions added to it. Capmo (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. The vast majority of the population of Rio de Janeiro supported the bid. The International Olympic Committee Evaluation Report (pg 89) shows 84.5% of public support. Your "theory" is POV, biased, and discriminative. Limongi (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per Limongi. Felipe Menegaz 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Limongi says that "the vast majority of the population of Rio de Janeiro supported the bid", but he forgets that Brazil is not Rio alone. I'll cite just a few excerpts that support my "theory", taken from articles published in the days after the result was announced:

As anyone can see from the articles above, which include editorials from two important newspapers (Estadão and The Economist), it's not just me that am being "POV, biased, and discriminative". I just wish things weren't the way they are, but we can't hide the truth. Capmo (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed words: strong => significant. A "Controversies" section was added to the article to display the main controversies during the bid campaign. Criticism made after the election should be added in 2016 Summer Olympics. Felipe Menegaz 19:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Olympics[edit]

To whom this may concern

I tried earlier to find the proposed dates for the Rio Olympics, and Google listed this article of yours, on Wikipedia. Rio de Janeiro is indeed the first South American city to ever host the Olympic Games. It is not the first time the Games are held in the Southern Hemisphere, however. They have been held twice before in Australia - in Sydney, nine years ago, and in Melbourne, back in 1956.

While I just wanted to point out the fact above, I congratulate you for being able to find the dates. I have not seen them on www.olympic.org yet.

Sincerely,

Walter Kehl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.164.95 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 35 external links on Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]