Talk:Belize at the 2016 Summer Olympics

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Belize at the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 20:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Starting my review now. Initial assessment of some of the quicker criteria are below. I'll have more time to work on it tonight and tomorrow. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   • In the sentence James, like most judokas, received a bye in the round of 64, could you specify how many of the judokas received a bye? Such as James was one of X out of Y judokas that received a bye in the 90kg category TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
   • The former participated in the men's 200 metres and the latter, I'd suggest using their last names for clarity. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Meets the required MOS guidelines for GA articles.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Could you link directly to the PDFs for the flagbearers so that the information can be verified more easily? TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   • I don't see any mention in source 2 or 3 of Belize (I could be missing it on the website) or their 2016 qualification. It also seems odd that a 2014 source would be used to describe the status of athletes qualifying for the 2016 games. This appears to be original research or synthesis based on uncited sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

   *Sources 6 and 7 don't refer to the source of the invitation or it being a universality invitation. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

   • I don't see any of the sourcing noting that it was their first Olympic appearance either by clearly stating it, or by omitting previous Olympics on a page that would be expected to contain their entire Olympic history. Its possible I'm missing something here, so let me know if I am. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyright violations or plagiarism detected

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Neutrally worded

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No evidence of edit wars

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are in the public domain.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   DatGuy, see above. The biggest concerns are with the potential OR. I don't doubt what the article says is true, but it should be summarizing what is explicitly mentioned in the sourcing. If I missed anything because of website navigation, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: I've fixed everything except for one thing and have a comment for another. Regarding the first bullet point in 2C, I just replaced it with the same one that I used to fix the second bullet point. Regarding the last point, I was unable to find out that explicitly states when Belize's first appearance was. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • DatGuy this source notes the history and could be used to verify the appearance data (and as a source for the main article). I'll take a look at the rest of the changes later in the day. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: I rarely use books, should probably add them to more articles. Thanks for the source. Added. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
      • DatGuy, no ptoblem. Sorry I haven't had a chance to look over more. Unexpectedly busy in real life the past few days. I should finish the review early part of this week :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• DatGuy, the only issue left is that in the source provided for qualifications, I only noticed Judo as being listed as the Wildcard, not athletics. Its possible I missed something, but that's the last bit of this review that needs to be fixed so this complies with WP:V. If I skipped over something in that source, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni: The following sentence was in the source: "James is a Judo instructor and athlete and like Jones and Sealy, he was also chosen as a wildcard for the Judo competition." I interpret it as saying that he had a wildcard spot, like Jones and Sealy did. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • DatGuy, ah, so it does. That was not my initial reading of it, but it makes sense looking at it again. That brings this to a pass. Good job. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)