Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics is a well-researched article, a survey of the best sources, which gives the reader a detailed representation of Rio's Olympic campaign. Felipe Menegaz 01:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments. No dablinks or dead external links. What are the "credentials in the neck" mentioned in one of the alt texts? Ucucha 01:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, those "credentials in the neck" are the identification (See Credential) that appear in three of them. Felipe Menegaz 01:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I know, but most people have only skins and bones and the like in their necks, and I don't see anything else in these people's necks. In any case, the detail should perhaps not even be included in the alt text. Ucucha 02:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Support. Good graphics and charts. Haven't looked very closely at the rest but I can't find any big problems. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Support. Excellent work. --Carioca (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we need all of those cities and countries linked in the first paragraph? The one sentence listing them has a whole lot of blue. I can see linking more exotic places like Azerbaijan, but Spain and the U.S.?
Well, if I want to access those articles while reading? Felipe Menegaz 23:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
"This bid is the first that has proceeded to the Candidature phase". Shouldn't "has" be removed now, since the process has been over for a while now? This doesn't seem like past tense to me.
What makes Inside the Games (references 148 and 155) a reliable source?
✓ Done. Removed "Inside the Games" sources. Felipe Menegaz 21:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
One of the Manual of Style's provisions discourages collapsable tables in article text. This would include the large venue table in the middle of this article.
✓ Done. Removed "collapsable" options. Felipe Menegaz 23:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
More than half the sources (126 of 230, according to my count) are to either the IOC, Brazilian Olympic Committee, or the bid committee. This is a lot of primary sources for an FA to be carrying, especially for a topic that gained widespread attention. Was none of this covered in any media outlets. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Do not quite understand what you mean. Could you explain? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 23:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Simply put, I'm asking why this many sources from the three main organizations involved in this bid process are being used, instead of articles from newspapers, magazines and such. Did no one in the media write about any of these topics? We should be using the best sources possible; what they are depends on what is avaliable, of course. If media articles exist, it is preferable to use them over stories from the organizations connected to the process. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Bad case of Overcite. Please learn (and tell all your friends): One cite per statement – find the most relevant and most reliable one – , unless the statement is so controversial that it needs extra support. • Ling.Nut 23:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not know that... I will resolve it soon. Thanks; Felipe Menegaz 23:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. Several sources removed. Felipe Menegaz 21:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per copyvio. It took me two minutes to find copy/paste. I'll give you the example, but please do not fix that example and ask me to reconsider. If it takes me two minutes to find blatant copyvio, I lose my AGF with respect to the remainder of the text. Please withdraw the nom and go over every single statement. In other words, please be responsible for every cite. "A television tower will be built at the IBC/MPC complex to complement broadcasting operations and provide panoramic studios." If that's public domain, then I'll reconsider. But at this moment I'm looking at a copyright at the bottom of the page... • Ling.Nut 23:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
What? Copyvio? "A television tower will be built at the IBC/MPC complex to complement broadcasting operations and provide panoramic studios." is a copyright violation? How? You gave me a fright. Felipe Menegaz 23:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Felipe. I'm sorry to tell you the bad news, but yes it does appear that this text is a copyright violation. It appears to be a direct copy/pasted quote from this page. Please read WP:COPYVIO carefully. I'm also afraid that merely fixing that particular quote is unacceptable. You'll have to go back through every single line of the article, one by one, and check each one for WP:COPYVIO. The reason for all the trouble is that if one copyvio problem exists, the odds are extremely high that there are many... The text was apparently added by you at 09:46, 7 May 2009. • Ling.Nut 01:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This article was widely used in the internet, been copy-pasted by several reliable and unreliable sources. Even large media organizations, like the British Broadcasting Coorporation (BBC), used the text from this article. Take a look:
This is the first time that the city has proceeded to the Candidature phase, after four failed attempts in 1936, 1940, 2004 and 2012.
...could make the fourth double hosting in history; after Mexico in 1968 and 1970, Germany in 1972 and 1974, and the United States in 1994 and 1996.
Rio de Janeiro is planning to stage all the competitions inside the city, bringing dynamics to the games and facilitating the athlete's interaction. There will be seven competition centers in four Olympic regions—Barra, Copacabana, Deodoro, and Maracanã— where football matches will be held in the cities of Belo Horizonte, Brasília, Salvador and São Paulo.
It is the first time the city has proceeded to the candidature stage after failed attempts for the 1936, 1940, 2004 and 2012 Games.
...sights on the fourth double hosting in history; after Mexico in 1968 and 1970, Germany in 1972 and 1974, and the United States in 1994 and 1996.
Rio plans to stage all the competitions inside the city, bringing "dynamics to the games and facilitating the athlete's interaction", according to the bid website. There will be seven competition centres in four Olympic regions - Barra, Copacabana, Deodoro, and Maracana - with football matches held in the cities of Belo Horizonte, Brasilia, Salvador and Sao Paulo.
The original text was added by me on June 29, 2008.  After months, I made sure that BBC used my text because of an error. Actually, the Brazilian Olympic Committee did not choose Rio de Janeiro over São Paulo, as I wrote in 2008; because São Paulo was not disputing (I made a mistake, it was during the 2012 bid process). However, BBC stated on its article: "The Brazilian Olympic Commitee chose Rio de Janeiro ahead of Sao Paulo three years ago to bid for the 2016 Olympic Games."
Well, there is no copyvio. Actually, the text displayed on www.brazil2016olympics.co.uk is a copy from Wikipedia. As you can see is not only that sentence but the entire paragraph was copy-pasted. I wrote those sentences about one year ago, and this website must have added the text much later. Is there any way to find out what date the website has been created? Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 12:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
See other websites: . Check out the dates to note that these websites are copies of Wikipedia. One has even the references (). Felipe Menegaz 13:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Current copyrighted Rio 2016 text, copyrighted in 2008: "Through its mirroring effect, the symbol also forms a stylized clover"
Current Wiki text (identical): "Through its mirroring effect, the symbol also forms a stylized clover". Mmm, the words "through its mirroring effect", which now exist at the Rio site and Wikipedia, were altered on Wikipedia at 08:36, 20 February 2009. The original wiki text added much earlier (July 2008) uses the words "through its repetition" instead of "mirroring effect". Oops, the wayback machine for April 2008 has the text precisely identical to Wikipedia's original version: "Through its repetition, the symbol forms a stylized clover". To me it appears to be serial copyright violations... even copying updates to copyrighted sites.
I'm sorry. It should only take 2 or 3 weeks at the very, very most (and probably much less, if you can find a couple good copy editors) to find and correct any and all remaining issues. • Ling.Nut 00:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments: I will make some general comments and afterwards, will try to make a deeper scrutiny. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
One of the first things that I see is the excess of inline citations. There's just too many! If a statement is not controversial, one reference is more than enough. I don't think an article about an Olympic bid needs over 200 inline citations. This should be trimmed down.
✓ Done. Several sources removed. Felipe Menegaz 21:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Love the template tables, but the one with the schedule relies too much on colour to convey information. It would be better to use symbols to complement the colours, in order for colour-blind people to differentiate event competitions from event finals. The shaded cells for the gymnastics gala and the Olympic ceremonies are almost blended with the white background. Why not add the pictograms along the sport name, as well?
✓ Done. Pictograms and text-symbols added. Felipe Menegaz 21:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Can't you do something to reduce the length of the "Official documents" in the "References" section? Another layout, if you do not want to remove all those links...
On the 3rd paragraph, unlink Chicago, Madrid and Tokyo, already linked on the previous paragraph.
Actually, in the second paragraph there are links to "City" bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics while in the third paragraph they link to the city's main article. Should I really remove them? Felipe Menegaz 00:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, one cannot guess that by just looking at them. I'm not sure how to solve this, so I'll just leave it. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
"The Rio de Janeiro 2016 Candidate File hashad three volumes..."
Query: is "the" needed in the article title? It seems unnecessary. If you decide to move the article to a new name, without the "the", please ask me to do it, so I can get everything in the right place vis-a-vis the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)