Talk:Cayman Islands at the 2010 Winter Olympics

Cayman Islands at the 2010 Winter 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.
Review: June 30, 2018. (Reviewed version).

British Overseas Territories Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cayman Islands at the 2010 Winter Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 18:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I do not think British Columbia is necessary here: in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Made? The Cayman Islands were making
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Only wikilink Travers on first mention in the body
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Flag of the Cayman Islands.svg - Lord, I hate it when I have comments about flag copyrights. The source link is super dead, the domain is for sale. The Cayman Islands requires that their flag not be used for commercial purposes, which means it should not be hosted on Commons, as it fails non-commercial. See accompanying news story. I assume now is when I learn why I am wrong about it being non-commercial or something? File:2010 Opening Ceremony - Cayman Islands entering.jpg - copyright is fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Caption is fine.
	7. Overall assessment.

Responses:

WP:CANPLACE says otherwise about British Columbia.
As to the flag, I'm stumped. Maybe start a DR on Commons? Because this is going to disrupt a whole lot of articles if you're right. I also do not know how to remove it from the infobox... I'm totally stumped.
@Kees08: Courcelles (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: I genuinely hate dragging you into every image question I have, but do you know the answers to my Cayman Islands questions above? Kees08 (Talk) 17:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If only noncommercial use is allowed, we'd only be able to have it hosted under a fair use tag. However, I'm not convinced that's the case - given that UK law prevailed in the Caymans until recently, I would think PD-UKGov would apply to the design, which is intellectually pretty much the same as the 1958 version. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, Nikkimaria. Kees08 Any more issues to take care of here, then? Courcelles (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I requested more help, and we are going to let this play out and can finish the review upon its conclusion. Sorry for the delay! Kees08 (Talk) 22:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Kees08, the Commons DR has been closed as delete, so I think we're (finally) done with this review? Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Courcelles Let's fix the infobox that is broke because the flag is deleted, then I will close it. Thanks for your patience! Kees08 (Talk) 19:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles and Kees08: [1]. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]