This article, promoted more than three years ago, now fails a few criterion in my view:
1a: The writing isn't bad but needs improvements. I count at least five one-sentence paragraphs, including the second paragraph of the lead. The prose could use a fresh copy-edit.
1c: This is the big one. There are only seven citations in the article, and many sections are uncited. Statistics should always be referenced, and as a sports article this is full of them. There are also several uncited quotes. The referencing is just not up to current standards. Hopefully someone will have the listed reference books and cite statements with them; unfortunately I don't.
1d: A few scattered concerns. For example, Fencing describes competitors as "masters".
3: The infobox image's tag states "If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country." No such tag is present. Other pictures may be missing information, but I am not a photo expert, so I'll let others comment on them.
Overall, although I hope it stays featured, it will need quite a bit of work to do so. Giants2008 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Notifications request Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thank you. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't gone through the article yet, but I do just want to note that "master" is somewhat of a term of art in fencing, and refers in this context to those who teach fencing for payment. This makes them professionals rather than amateurs, which in all of the other sports would have disqualified them from Olympic competition. In 1896 and 1900, separate events were held for masters and amateurs. It is a technical term; does this need to be clarified? As for citations, much of the information does come from the Lampros report, which is available online for any helpful people who have some time to go through it to find the specific references. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 21:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Fencing was the only event professionals were allowed to participate in.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I should also mention that the existing references are poorly formatted, and a couple are of questionable reliability. Giants2008 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll work a bit on the article, but I cannot promise that I'll be done within the time limits.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), POV (1d), and images (3).Marskell (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: As you can see, I've initiated some improvements, but I still have to go through some sub-sections of the "Sport by sport overview" section.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to say Remove at this stage. It needs a thorough prose-massage and MOS check. TONY(talk) 11:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree the prose needs some "masaging", but I think that with a nice copy-editing the article is ok. After all it is not such a long article! So, I address an open invitation for a copy-editing to help this article keep its star. I can improve everything else but prose is my weakness! As far as MoS is concerned, I do not see any major issues.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is working on this, there are still issues. WP:MOS#Images (layout) need attention, there are WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues with the use of color in charts. Some WP:MOSNUM issues, and some citation work needed still. Missing accessdates, missing NBSPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Worked a bit with nbsps and ndashes. Missing accessdates? I do not think so. I am not good in charts; I thus do not intend to intervene there.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
There were a few references without accessdates, which I fixed myself. Do Google Books links need accessdates? If so, I can add them where needed. I believe I caught the number issues as well. The article has improved since I nominated it, but I'm not sure if this matches the quality of new featured articles. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not think Books need accessdates. But Sandy knows better these issues. What exactly do you think that it is not up to FA standards?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is a review similar to the kind I do at FAC
Images should not be left-aligned directly below second-level headings. I'm not sure how the links to event articles factor into this.
"Panathinaiko Stadium, the first big stadium in the modern world, overflowed with the largest crowd ever to watch a sporting event." The largest crowd part is not mentioned later. Also, consider placing "at the time" after this to avoid confusion.
I do not know; mentioning it again in the main text looked to me a bit repetitive. After all it is cited, and the main text treats again the crowd of spectators in the opening ceremony. About at the time, do you mean editing:"overflowed with the largest crowd ever to watch a sporting event at the time."?
That's exactly what I mean. There have obviously been larger crowds at sporting events since then. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Corrected as I can see. Probably by H1nkles.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Reviving the Games: "French pedagouge and historian Pierre de Coubertin's idea was to revive the ancient Greek Olympics, but in the form of an international multi-sport event." Picky, but since the idea hasn't been mentioned, this should probably be "French pedagouge had historian Pierre de Coubertin had an idea to revive the ancient Greek Olympics, but in the form of an international multi-sport event."
See my new edits. I hope they are towards the right direction.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
So the "but" in the previous item makes sense, how about a brief mention that the Ancient Games were an all-Greek thing?
I did some work myself a while back and am happy with how this is coming along. Obviously I didn't catch everything, and I don't like to make edits to FACs or FARs if the changes could be disputed. You've gotten a lot of help for this and it's starting to show. Please keep at it. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Moving here from my talk page H1nkles' relevant remarks:
"I am working on editing the copy of the article and I had some questions, under the section entitled "Orangization" you talk about a statue being unveiled to honor the contributions of George Averoff. You say this statue was unveiled on April 5 but you don't indicate what year. Do you know the year? 1895 or 1896?:
"Also you describe the stadium as having a straight running track of 232 meters.... Is this the pre or post-renovation description? This part is a little ambiguous and you may want to consider removing unless we can find a full description of the renovations that Averoff commissioned for the stadium. There are brief descriptions under the Wikipedia articles for Averoff and Panathinaiko Stadium but it isn't enough to fully explore the topic." H1nkles (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I will reinstate the phrase only if I am capable of citing it (which seems to me difficult).--Yannismarou (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I looked for more information on the renovations of the stadium, but it is very difficult to find anything of substance. The stadium was the center piece of the Games and I think a section on the unique qualities of the stadium would only enhance and support this article. I'll continue to research. H1nkles (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Under "Athletics" subheading Spyridon Louis is listed as a 'water-carrier'. Was this is profession? I thought he was a shepherd. The Spyridon Louis article also says he was a water carrier, but several sites list him as a shepherd: , . Does someone know more than me on this subject? Am I missing something? H1nkles (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Very interesting and accurate remark. Well, all the official sites present him as shepherd. But a series of Greek sites (most of them newspapers articles) present him as a water carrier (νερουλάς)! My feeling says that my compatriots know something more, but the official sites are official sites, and per WP:Reliable sources we should follow them!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I have gone through the article word by word looking for improvements. I've made several edits and would appreciate it if a more experienced editor would review the article as it currently stands, and give input on further areas where polish is needed. Thanks H1nkles (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to you too. After much copy-editing, the article is close, but let's see what other problems I can find. Picking up from where I left off...
Athletics: "winning with times of 12.0 and 54.2 seconds and with relative ease." The prose can be improved, and I'm not sure if the last part is POV (with relative ease). It would probably be better to state how much he won by.
Already rephrased as I can see.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Cycling: "In the track events, the best cyclist was Frenchman Paul Masson, winning the..." Don't think "winning" works well here. "Who won" would be correct, I believe.
"The second event, for military pistols, was dominated by" People here are sensitive to terms like "dominated", although it's not the most blatant POV I've ever seen. I'd like to see it stated that John Paine won the event, if only to help the end of the paragraph (relatives both winning Olympic events).
"The Paine brothers did not compete in the 25 meter pistol event, as their weapons were judged to be not of the required caliber." Last part of this can be improved. Also, has anybody ever claimed that this was sour grapes on the part of the Greeks?
Rephrased the sentence. Interesting question though I would speculate that a rule such as the required caliber for a specific event would be clearly spelled out prior to the event. H1nkles (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
He! He! Well, H1nkles, nothing was very clear in 1896!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
"when Georgios Orphanidis was celebrated as the champion." Perhaps say why he was celebrated (home-country winner).
I changed "celebrated" to "crowned". I interpreted this sentence to be just a different way of saying that Georgios Orphanidis won the event, rather than to say that there were special celebrations because he had won. The context of this section seems to lend weight to this interpretation though I will certainly defer to the author's opinions. H1nkles (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Swimming: "The 1896 swimming competition was held in the open ocean, this due to the fact that the organizers had refused..." This is tighter: "The swimming competition was held in the open ocean because the organizers had refused..."
"The water off the bay in early April is notoriously cold" Flip notoriously cold and early April, and check the tense (is).
Absolutely correct. How did I miss that?! Corrected.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
That was my fault sorry.--H1nkles (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
As the nominator, I can say that this is just about there in my mind. After these are done, ask Sandy if her complaints are resolved. Keep up the great work. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, come on, Giants; you and Yannis know the standards as well as I do. If you both say it's fine, it probably is (I'm short on time and I hadn't entered a remove, I trust you two :-) I don't think Elcobbola would be pleased about those decorative flags, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
"Γηράσκουμε αεί διδασκόμενοι (we always learn while getting older)" Sandy! And FAC criteria are evolving all the time!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Keep, as there has been a lot of work on this article. For my review, I looked at the opening FARC diff (here) and compared it to the current version, 259 edits later as of a minute ago. Sourcing is much improved, formatting is much improved, and the article is now in good shape. I concur with Sandy about the flags, but that's a minor issue; I'm not seeing any other items that would preclude a Keep here. UltraExactZZClaims ~ Evidence 13:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Guys, I have no problem to remove the flags, but two years now (and I've worked on some FACs and FARCs!) I was never good with all these flags, templates, images formatting etc. stuff! As I see it now, it pleasures my eye ... If you want me to tell you the specific WP rule on the issue ... Hmmm ... You got me! On these issues I work all the time with my instict!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm on the fence, myself; I try to avoid elements such as the flags, but I'm not seeing a method to convey the information here that is as concise and clear as the flags - So, in the absence of an alternative, I'd leave them. I agree that it looks good, hence the Keep. Good work, btw. UltraExactZZClaims ~ Evidence 12:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
After making a couple more edits earlier, put me down as a keep. Great effort by everyone here, although I still don't have Sandy's level of knowledge of the FA standards. I'm getting there, though. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 20:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.