Talk:Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly

Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 16, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Olympics Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Swimming Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Swimming, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swimming 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.SwimmingWikipedia:WikiProject SwimmingTemplate:WikiProject Swimmingswimming articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Records

I'm not briefed in how we're supposed to go about maintaining these articles, but this seems to be wrong to me. In the record section, it says:

"Prior to this competition, the existing world and Olympic records were as follows.

Olympic Record United States Michael Phelps (USA) 50.58 Beijing, China 15 August 2008 -"

It says prior to this competition, and then it reads Phelps' record made in the competition. Is that correct or not? --Concordia (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I jumped the gun, someone corrected it. But the Olympic record given in the article is still one that was made during one of the heats. Should we display the record before the entire event, including the heats, or just the final? --Concordia (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be displaying the records before the entire competition, even the prelims. Kingnavland (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations

Can I get any information on what the AS and OC abbreviations mean? Swern425 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question...we need a legend on the page. Ctjf83Talk 05:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same confusion, I've started a discussion here. --Falcorian ^(talk) 08:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found out what they were...posted here Ctjf83Talk 03:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cavic's comments

I added a second statement Cavic made concerning Phelp's win, as Cavic's comments were much more equivocal than the previous entry suggested. Calypygian (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Link

I have a query about the external link that has just been added. I felt a little bit misled by the title when I followed the link. The title given for the link on the wiki page sounded very neutral, but when I followed it, the webpage itself was rather POV. I was wondering;- (1) If people want this external link, is there a better title we can think of for it that indicates that it is POV? (NB I can't even work out whose POV it is, because the webpage doesn't specify the reference of the "we"). (2) If people want this external link, shouldn't we also have another external link to balance it which offers the final position of FINA, the Serbian delgation and Cavic himself? Calypygian (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been removed. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I've added an {{Infobox Olympic event}} which WP:OLY hope will eventually be rolled out to all olympic event articles. Basement12 (T.C) 19:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't realize that such an infobox existed. --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 19:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results tables

There are some variations amongst the Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics - EVENT articles where the heats are either separated into a table per heat, or combined into one complete sortable table (e.g. Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's 200 metre freestyle). Whilst this variation hasn't been discussed on WP:OLY, with this article aiming for GA status, this article should use the standard choice that the other articles should then follow. I'd say the one larger sortable table looks better - swimming event progression is based on time only, not position within a heat, so the separate heat placings aren't so important.

Furthermore it has been discussed at WP:OLY (Wt:WikiProject Olympics#I love standards - there are so many to choose from) about having a notes column for displaying WR/OR/CR/NR etc. I notice this column is missing from the tables in this article.

Yboy83 (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. The notes column should go in what ever the choice of table type but I think one sortable table is the direction to take with all the swiming articles. The templates {{WR|swimming}} linking to World records in swimming and {{OlyR|swimming}} that links to List of Olympic records in swimming should be used in the notes column. Basement12 (T.C) 20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the table per heat format looks a little better, but I'm less familiar with the guidelines in these sorts of articles than you two, so I'll be fine with whatever the consensus is. --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 22:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metre butterfly/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Any comments are welcome Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 05:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

~~If no one has any objections left, I will pass this as a good article in 2 days. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 05:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Passed. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say pass away, it's definitely a good article. H1nkles (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
History is fine.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Passed

GA Peer Review Comments

Comments from User:Andrwsc

My only concern is that this article needs to be structured similar to the other Olympic event articles, per WP:WikiProject Olympics consensus. ~~For example, the heat results are formatted as a set of (unlabelled) independent tables, whereas all the other swimming articles identify the heat number.~~ There is also no "Records" section. Along the same lines, some of the content in this article is applicable to all swimming events for 2008, not just the men's 100 m fly. The "Venue" and "LZR Racer suits" sections should really be moved to the Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics article, as this article is essentially a WP:Summary style subsection of that. (I wouldn't think that duplicating that content on all 32 swimming event articles would be a good solution either.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One comment addressed, as indicated by strikeout text. Other concerns—esp. "Venue" and "LZR Racer suits" sections—still remain. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved these sections to the main Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics page (though the sections there may need reordering) leaving only a brief mention i the "Preview" section. Basement12 (T.C) 21:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:H1nkles

Thus far I have only reviewed the lead in depth. Here are my thoughts:

My understanding of the lead is that it is to be a good summary of the article. Editors should avoid duplicative citations. You have 7 citations in this lead, many of which are also referred to in the body of the article. Instead of suggesting that you cut down the number of citations I refer you to WP:LEADCITE for some further insight on citing the lead. If you feel as though the citations are warranted and required then keep them.

After reading over the policy, it appears that citations should not be kept, unless the subject is controversial. I've removed all the cittions, except for the ones talking about Cavic's controversial comments, the Serbian protest, and the controversial swimsuits and pool. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twice in the lead you say "beat him by one-hundredth of a second", I believe the correct verbage would be "one one-hundredth of a second". I'm not sure if there is consensus on how this should be written.

Changed, I'm pretty sure you're correct on the verbage. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a style issue but I would remove the words, "to call" from the following sentence: "Phelps' margin of victory was so close to call that the Serbian Team...." It's a matter of preference, "to call" can be a bit superfluous but it's up to you.

Changed to "Phelps' margin of victory was not clear...", is that any better? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the final sentence in the lead regarding the 4x100 metre medley relay. As the article currently stands I don't see where it has any bearing. H1nkles (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better - lead looks consistent with WP:LEADCITE. You had added one of the one one-hundredths, I added the other one. I also made a minor change from "was not clear..." to "was so close...." See if that flows a little better. So from my perspective the Lead looks good. H1nkles (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Qualification" Heading:

I'm considering the benefits of wikilinking all of the athletes in this section. I've read several articles where this happens even though it splashes the page with a lot of red ink. The MOS on this issue is inconclusive. It warns against excessive wikilinking but seems to leave it up to the discretion of the editor. Most of the athletes mentioned in this section have articles (only 8 would require red wikilinks) and so perhaps by wikilinking the rest you will flag editors who have an interest to create articles for some of the other athletes.

Linked, I'm going to create stubs for all of those swimmers. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm thinking of it, I believe the picture of Phelps in the Preview section is him doing the breastroke (I'm no expert on this mind you). Since this is an article about the butterfly you may want to look for one of him doing the "fly". They seem to be ubiquitous around the web and I'm sure one would meet Wikipedia's fair use standards. I did a little checking around Wikipedia but couldn't find one. H1nkles (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the pictures I can find, that one seems to work best. There's one with Phelps, Larsen Jenson, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr., but I think the one we have now works best. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I wasn't able to find anything either. I'm not very familiar with the image fair use regulations yet so I'm hesitant to pull something from the Web. Keep what you have for now and we'll see what develops down the road. H1nkles (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "pre-race favorites" Heading:

There is a grammatical error in the CBC quote. The last sentence in the quote. Is that an error in the copying of the quote or an actual error in the quote itself? H1nkles (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBC's error. Added a [sic]. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "venue" and "LZR racer" Headings:

Take a look at the tense in the Venue section. You switch from past to present and back to past tense through out the section.
There is a grammatical error in the line "...due to them helping soothe...", this should be "...due to the fact that they help soothe..." The same can be said for the line "...the indoor advantages of controlling temperature, humdity and lighting..." Perhaps make the indoor advantes into a list with a colon. I'm going to do a little prose massage of the Venue section, take a look at it when I'm done and let me know what you think.
Your source for FINA's endorsement of SPEEDO is "Gizmodo". To enhance credibility you may want to look for FINA's official endorsement, announcement or press conference. H1nkles (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Competition" Heading:

Consider wikilinking the other athletes in the first several heats for the same reasons listed above.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your quotations of Cavic at the end of the Protest subheading are a little choppy. It appears as though you've pulled a couple of quotes together from different sources. I think just restructuring the sentence to acknowledge that they are different quotes given at different times would do the trick. More to come as I get time. H1nkles (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better - good job. H1nkles (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Citation #5:

This citation dead ends at a page not found message. I think you use it on several occasions throughout the article. H1nkles (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed this. The url was incorrect. Basement12 (T.C) 20:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Records and tables:

I'm not as versed on the standardization process that the Olympics Community on Wikipedia is undertaking so I would check with Basement12 or Andrwsc regarding that. There is a significant discussion going on as to how to make all the tables and records standard across all Olympic-related articles. I do note that you list Olympic and Continental Records in the tables but not National Records, though in the article you outline all the national records that were set. If it is consistent with form you may want to put those NR's in as well. I will do a final read-through of the article and further check sources and give a last review. H1nkles (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The records tables were initially added to show the Olympic (OR) and World (WR) records prior to the games. The problem we had was a lot of good faith edits were being made to the tables when new ORs or WRs were set so a discussion took place on a new records section. I think NRs need to be left out of these tables as the inital table doesn't list any prior NRs (it could be that 50/60 nations took part).

As far as the "notes" colums go discussions decided that WRs and ORs are in a class above NRs, hence they use linking templates in the notes column, but NRs should be listed here, if we have the correct sources ror them. I'll have a look into that myself. Basement12 (T.C) 15:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the current reference for NR's - this reference is a list of current records - i.e. it will change. Referencing of NR's should be e.g. a news article or governing body press release explicitly saying a national record was broken in this swim.

Also thinking that 'CR' is confusing - would prefer to see 'ER' 'AF' 'AS' 'AM' 'OC' etc. as was used on the Beijing official results site. CR could be confused with a Commonwealth/Course/Championship record. Additionally i thought it was decided at WP:OLY not to link the continental records? Yboy83 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the abbreviations. The discussion at WP:OLY decided not to bold or use a template for CRs, linking them still makes sense as it avoids having to have a key for them all. I see what you mean regarding the national records, this source is used throughout the article though so rather than removing it straight off i'll look for another than can replace all of its uses. Basement12 (T.C) 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any single source (that wil be stable) listing all the national records set. This means that either each record will need individually sourcing or they all need to be removed. However this will also greatly effect the main body of text so I will start a discussion below to discuss what to do. Basement12 (T.C) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding overall impression of the article:

First I refer you to the above discussion regarding listing of records and how best to format the records tables. I think you've done a good job from what I can see. As you can tell there is still debate as to the best format but I know that the overarching goal is consistency among all Olympics articles. I don't think this won't affect the article's standing in the GAR though.
Second, my overall impression is that the article is well written, good prose, good grammatical structure. Your cites are credible. Good use of pictures. I'm not an expert on MoS so I'll leave that to others.
Finally, you might want to include a link to the YouTube video of Phelps' lunge to the wall, perhaps as a cite at the point when you discuss the results. I think this video and/or photo (when it can be freely used), will become an iconic image of these Beijing Olympics, and since this article is about that event, eventually it should make its way into the article. Other than that, my review is done, good job and I sincerely hope it passes GAR, you've done a lot of work on this article and you should be proud. H1nkles (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. As far as the external links, I have added a Sports Illustrated article displaying photos of Phelps and Cavic touching the line. I couldn't find a video of the full race (I'll keep looking), but I did link to a summary of the race by the AP. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aUwAOW3fvs Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 01:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the video in the external links section, but I'm going to keep an eye on it because it might violate copyright and some networks (espically NBC) are very strict when it comes to using clips that they filmed. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Records

Having loked extensively I can't find any single source listing all the national records set that will remain stable (the current one will change as new records are set). This means that either each record will need individually sourcing or they all need to be removed. However this will also greatly efect the main body of text. i don't know who initially listed all the NRs but it would be good to know where they got the information. It seems to be incomplete anyway as this source suggests a new Maltese record, not currently mentioned, was also set. I think the problem we have is ensuring that we have every record listed as without them either being listed in the official results its very difficult to check. Basement12 (T.C) 21:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fraud confirmed!!

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society-article.php?yyyy=2009&mm=08&dd=07&nav_id=61012 It is clear, that he was second in the 100 meter race. Even Omega admits it, finally after one year. (LAz17 (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080826081745/http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200808/s2337520.htm?tab=sport to http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/200808/s2337520.htm?tab=sport

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]