Talk:Antigua and Barbuda at the 2008 Summer Olympics/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 16:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Next up:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  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:


  1. The background section should mention who the flag bearer was and, if the information is available in reliable sources, why he was nominated.
  • Put into article. Oakley77 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. The second paragraph of the "background" section ("The Foreign Ministry of Antigua and Barbuda supported the Chinese handling of the civil unrest in Tibet and expressed support for Chinese efforts to host the Olympics in Beijing despite the controversy.") needs to be expanded upon a little more. You can't assume that the reader will know what the controversy is, so you need to put this sentence into some context and explain the issue a bit.
  • Explained the controversy in a nutshell. Oakley77 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Under "Men's 200 meters", you should clarify which school in the University of Texas system the athlete attended. Also it would be useful to know when he broke those records to provide a little context.
  • He attended the University of Texas, the flagship program in the UoT system.
  1. Under "Men's high jump", "Grayman cleared a 2.20 meter height on his second attempt, tying 10th place finalist Dmytro Dem'yanyuk of the Ukraine, who made the jump the first time, through the three thirteenth-place finalists (Italy's Alessandro Talotti, Spain's Javier Bermejo, and Botswana's Kabelo Kgosiemang), who made the jump the third time" needs to be reworded because I don't understand what you're trying to say. Do you mean that all of them got the same height (which is correct according to the source)? If so, why leave out Linus Thörnblad, who also got the same height? Also, using the word "tying" doesn't work here because, even though they got the same height, Dem'yanyuk had a higher placing. So overall, this whole sentence needs to be reworded, which I can help with, but I need to know exactly what was meant to be said here.
  • I believe I cleaned this up. Oakley77 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • There were a couple things that were still left to be done. I think I've wrapped those things still left to be done. --Starstriker7(Talk) 03:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Why is there a stray, unformatted reference at the end of the references section?
  • I didn't nominate the article, so I don't know. Oakley77 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • This reference was a vestige of the article before I began editing it. As it is extraneous, I have removed it. --Starstriker7(Talk) 03:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Other than that, everything looks good. I made some changes, hopefully nothing too controversial, again mostly some flow and MOS issues. To allow for this change to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 16:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears this article has been visited by a GAN fairy. :) Thanks for looking at the comments, Oakley!
I'm going to take another lookover to see if anything else needs to be done, but I think he (or she) may have gotten pretty much everything (except for one thing relating to the high jump, which I'll reexamine). --Starstriker7(Talk) 03:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The high jump section was still confusing but, now that I know what was trying to be said, I reworded it and made it more concise, so I believe that it works now. The article now appears to meet the criteria at this point, so I will be passing it. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 14:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)