Talk:Winter Olympic Games/GA1

GA Review

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

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
- What is meant by the first nominally international... As a reader, I feel that something is being withheld from me, but I do not understand what.
Removed "nominally" as it would be out of the scope of the article to go into detail on how homogenous the Nordic Games were.
- In general, there are several places where the brackets break the prose; it should rarely be used in professional prose. This will need to be fixed before FAC.
  - Yes, of course parenthesis. I just couldn't remember the word at the time.
Point of clarification, by brackets do you mean parenteses ()? I just want to be sure I'm hunting down the right things.
- There are many inconsistencies throughout the article, in particularly related to the MoS. The article will need a thorough check to comply if nominate for FAC.
I've become more versed in MOS issues since first nominating this article. I will go through it again and make corrections.
- Every single host city has its country states, except for the US hosts, which are always indicated by their state. This is highly biased; however, almost all American Wikipedians who submit material to GA reviews seems to be unable to see this clear bias. With all due respect, two-thirds of the worlds English speakers do not live in the US—please take a more international perspective on your editing. (Interestingly, Canadian and British Wikipedians do not have the same problem).
I am ashamed. I truly try to be unbiased so I appreciate the slap on the wrist when my efforts fall short. I see another chastisement coming.
- Why is it stated that Squaw Valley was nothing more than a village? The same could be said about Garmish-Partenkirchen, Cortina d'Ampezzo and Lake Placid.
The source here stressed the near nonexistence of Squaw Valley prior to hosting the Games. That said, the other villages listed could fall into the same context, I'll remove the statement.
- Is Saporro correct? There is no such mention of a place on either the English nor the Swedish Wikipedia. (It could exist, but I am double-checking). Calling it a city is a bit of an exageration, anyhow.
I believe Sapporo, Japan (host of the 1972 Games) is the city which is meant here. I've corrected the spelling and added the country to eliminate the conjunction confusion. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonel is right here, sorry for the mix up. H1nkles (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not USD $X, but either USD X or US$X.
I note you took great pains to fix many of my transgressions. Thank you. I'll go through the article again to make sure there are no other examples of this.
- I do not think the world "bereft" is common enough to use on Wikipedia.
Removed bereft and reworded sentence. H1nkles (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Identical references should call on the same ref several times. For instance use the syntax <ref name=whatever>...</ref> and then recall the ref with <ref name=whatever />.
I think I've got all the duplicate references and combined them. H1nkles (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are bad isbn checksums.
The Olympic Sports and Propaganda Games book has an isbn end digit of "x". I'm not sure how to rectify that so I put it in as "x".

The last digit of the isbn mumber is a check-sum. It can be calculated by hand or through a simple program. Perhaps the article on isbn has the algorithm.
(outdent) I'm going to have to pause at this point and get back to real life. I'll jump back on this later, thanks again for your work. H1nkles (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
- The two controversies are way out of scope. The first issue is important enough, and could receive its own paragraph, but the judge scandal is of a very marginal importance in an article about the Winter Olypmics. A sentence or two in the history section would be sufficient.
I cut out the judging scandal and put about three lines into the 2002 Games history section. It was hard to keep it short but I think I got the basics in there.
- How was the China/Taiwan issue resolved before the 1984 games? (a sentence or two will do).
I added two sentences to the 1984 history section about the resolution to the conflict started in 1980. H1nkles (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
- In general, the article has a thorough bias towards the US. In part this is because an abundance of sources are American, but there are many areas where the scope, prose or detailing is related towards the US.
I will undertake a critical look at the article and make changes to internationalize it. H1nkles (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've sifted the article and attempted to de-Americanize it. I hope it is a little more balanced. I also added a spot on Björn Dählie, the great Norwegian cross-country skiier who was glaringly missing from the history section. H1nkles (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Bjørn Dæhlie (no need to write his name as they do in Sweden or Germany ;)

I am sooo bad with the script, I wish I knew more about European languages and how to write them in Wikipedia, I would have caught that. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The section on the 1980 Lake Placid games seems to have an American bias. The formulations are marginally in favor of the US throughout the paragraph. It should be polished down. Remember to consult non-US sources.
You're absolutely right, I removed "American" from "American boycott" because it ended up being a boycott of nearly the entire western world anyway. I feel that the hockey win and Heiden's five golds would be glaringly missing if either were removed but I also added a noteworthy acheivement by a female skiier from Liechenstein. I could add more if you feel the section is still out of balance. H1nkles (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Describing a person as "charismatic" is not appropriate on Wikipedia. It is a weasel word, and is highly subjective.
Removed
- Under politics, it is discussed how German propagated their politics through the Games. Could it be explained how? All the article mentions is how they did not propagade anit-semittism nor "unpopular beliefs". As it stands, the paragraphs says nothing, but makes highly subjective claims. I am also concerned because of the personification of Hitler.
In rereading the intro paragraph for this section I found it bland and poorly written. I removed it entirely. I'm not sure an introduction is required, if so I'll put something in there but for now I'll leave it as is. H1nkles (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
- I will accept the fair use rationale for File:1924w.jpg under doubt.
As I am slowly pushing this article towards featured status I know that FAC reviewers look very critically at fair use, I don't think the image would pass at that level so I removed it, with sadness. H1nkles (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember not to force image sizes
- More images would be nice (though not a GA criteria, just a recommendation).
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am placing the article on hold. There are several issues that need to be addressed. I have given some comments regarding future work to get the article closer to FA requirements, since I see that the article is approching features quality.
I appreciate your review I'll get on the fixes and work towards upgrading the article. H1nkles (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked through your suggestions and Jonel and I have made several edits. Please advise if there is more work to do and I will be happy to take it on. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am passing the article. It is a fine piece of work, and way over the GA criteria. I have been a bit picky to help in areas I have spotted that could be a problem at FA, since such a fine, and not least important, work should go there. Personally I would recommend at least one check for MOS and a copyedit by someone who hasn't written the article. Other than that all I can say is the best of luck. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your work. Your two reviews of my articles have been cogent, topical and not the least bit nit picky. The article is better, which is why I really believe in the GA process. Keep on doing what you do! H1nkles (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]