Talk:Nastia Liukin/GA1

GA Review

Lead

I would be tempted to move the second and third par round.
wl 2008 Beijing Olympics to the most appropriate link.

Early life

Do you have any references for the first par?

Junior career

Is there a wikilink for all-around?
Reference 12 isn't formatted correctly.

2005-2006

"Liukin tied with teammate and frequent competitive rival Chellsie Memmel" Not sure you need the full description of Memmel again, perhaps teammate will do. Also you don't need to repeat her first name so soon after her last mention.
"However, due to an ankle injury sustained in training before the competition began, she was only able to compete on one event, the uneven bars, at Worlds." Do you need to say "at Worlds" since you've just mentioned them the previous sentence.

2008

"16.6 on the uneven bars" and "16.65 on the uneven bars". How come this doesn't follow the normal policy of "16.600 on the uneven bars" and "16.650 on the uneven bars"?

Competitive history

This should start with her oldest competitions. I.e Junior at the top right, with that section arranged from 2002 to 2004, down to 2008 at the end.

A few things to do, but nothing substantial, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your help and for reviewing the article! :) I've made all of the changes indicated here--for the competitive history, I couldn't figure out how to work with the table to move years, so I replaced it with another, easier-to-read table. DanielEng (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I'll restore the old one and correct it to the right order? Or do you want to keep the new one? Peanut4 (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, the new one looks better and takes up less space, so I think it'd be best to stay with it. Thank you for offering though! :) DanielEng (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks fine. But as with Alicia Sacramone, I'll keep it on hold until after she has competed at the Olympics, partly to meet the stability criteria. I'll keep both GAs and the pages on my watchlist, but just drop me a note when you're ready to complete the review. Peanut4 (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyhting looks pretty good, however the combination of the Olympics and the page being protected means at the moment it will fail stability. Secondly a good article shouldn't really be protected, particularly not while being under review. So unfortunately I'm going to fail it. Pre-Olympics everything was in place, so there is little more (if anything) that is needed to bring it up to GAN standard in my opinion. My suggestion would be to wait say two weeks and then re-nominate the article once it has been unprotected and it becomes stable again. Peanut4 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I thank you for your help here, but I disagree with this. I thought the original agreement mentioned above was to wait until the end of the Olympics to pass/fail this, on the understanding that the article was going to be going through some changes. Also, I don't think protection should come into play here--there are plenty of FA and GAs that do need to be protected from IP vandals, simply because they are about public figures and receive a lot of traffic. Also, in rechecking the GA criteria, I don't see protection being listed as a reason to fail. Is there any way to request a second opinion on this? DanielEng (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: I've put in for a reassessment. DanielEng (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]