Talk:1956 Winter Olympics/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- An ideal article does not have any 'see also'-section; these are especially not to be used for articles not already linked in the article. 'See also'-sections are not disencouraged, but should be used with care.
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- Participating nations is not referenced, neither is the medal count nor infobox statistics information not repeated in the text.
- I've added some references. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Participating nations is not referenced, neither is the medal count nor infobox statistics information not repeated in the text.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- I am somewhat concerned about the scope of the article. Given the large amount of subarticles, I find this one somewhat short. I am also concerned about the "highlights" section, which is list a list. What I would propose, is that the section "events" be created, and that a single or double paragraph be written about each sport, plus one for the opening and closing ceremonies. Could there also be created a section on "organizing", which would include such things as the television (e.g. how many countries broadcast the games, where all events broadcast, etc.), financing (who paid for the venues) and sponsoring. Is it also possible to add a calandar? Simply stating that the program was the same as in Oslo, but with additions, just irritates the user, unless details follow.
- I've added the descriptions for the various sports; I'll see what I can do about a calendar when I get a chance. The rest of those items aren't really my forte (H1nkles? anyone?). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I will jump in and see what I can do. Jonel - you've done a great job, thank you! H1nkles (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok I've added opening and closing ceremony recaps. That's all I have time for today, I'll work on the "organizing" section next. H1nkles (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I wanted to address the highlights section concerns that you raised. Most articles that fall into the Olympics category of (year) Winter/Summer Olympics as this one does, have a "highlights" section. The Olympics project has to establish consensus on what sections should be in each of these articles. In the mean time I have kept the "highlights" section in this article to conform with the format of most of the other articles in this category. H1nkles (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- This only GA or FA article prior to this nomination is 1986, and it does not use a 'highlights' section. On a more general basis, i find that a 'highlights' section is not in line with how articles on Wikipedia are written; the section contains miscellaneous information, most of which is (or should be) mentioned in other places in the article. The lead could be longer, and key events should perhaps be mentioned there. With a highlights section, information ends up either being mentioned three times, or information on one subtopic is split up between two places in the text body. For instance, to take the two first points on the bullet list, the mention of the first female oath-taker would be better off in the 'opening ceremony' section; the information in the second bullet is repeated again in the 'skiing' section. Arsenikk (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I've removed the highlights section and folded the facts into other sections in the article. I've also added an "Organization" section to highlight a little about the organization of the Games. The difficult part of listing all the costs is that they are in Lire only and to convert it into USD and account for inflation is a mess. I can quote how much the Games cost but I don't know how beneficial that will be. It's in the billions of Lire. There isn't much on who sponsored the Games from a corporate stand point other than the Fiat reference. I added some interesting info on the televising aspect of these Games. I hope that addresses your concerns. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. H1nkles (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. For conversion, I would recommend euro, since it does not fluctuate, is widely known international (most readers of Wikipedia are not Americans anyway) and is the successor of the lira. Also, denote currencies with their three-letter ISO code, not a '$' followed by the name of it; in this case it is called lira, not lire (which links to something completely different).
- Ok, I've removed the highlights section and folded the facts into other sections in the article. I've also added an "Organization" section to highlight a little about the organization of the Games. The difficult part of listing all the costs is that they are in Lire only and to convert it into USD and account for inflation is a mess. I can quote how much the Games cost but I don't know how beneficial that will be. It's in the billions of Lire. There isn't much on who sponsored the Games from a corporate stand point other than the Fiat reference. I added some interesting info on the televising aspect of these Games. I hope that addresses your concerns. Let me know if there is anything else I can do. H1nkles (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- This only GA or FA article prior to this nomination is 1986, and it does not use a 'highlights' section. On a more general basis, i find that a 'highlights' section is not in line with how articles on Wikipedia are written; the section contains miscellaneous information, most of which is (or should be) mentioned in other places in the article. The lead could be longer, and key events should perhaps be mentioned there. With a highlights section, information ends up either being mentioned three times, or information on one subtopic is split up between two places in the text body. For instance, to take the two first points on the bullet list, the mention of the first female oath-taker would be better off in the 'opening ceremony' section; the information in the second bullet is repeated again in the 'skiing' section. Arsenikk (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I wanted to address the highlights section concerns that you raised. Most articles that fall into the Olympics category of (year) Winter/Summer Olympics as this one does, have a "highlights" section. The Olympics project has to establish consensus on what sections should be in each of these articles. In the mean time I have kept the "highlights" section in this article to conform with the format of most of the other articles in this category. H1nkles (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've added the descriptions for the various sports; I'll see what I can do about a calendar when I get a chance. The rest of those items aren't really my forte (H1nkles? anyone?). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am somewhat concerned about the scope of the article. Given the large amount of subarticles, I find this one somewhat short. I am also concerned about the "highlights" section, which is list a list. What I would propose, is that the section "events" be created, and that a single or double paragraph be written about each sport, plus one for the opening and closing ceremonies. Could there also be created a section on "organizing", which would include such things as the television (e.g. how many countries broadcast the games, where all events broadcast, etc.), financing (who paid for the venues) and sponsoring. Is it also possible to add a calandar? Simply stating that the program was the same as in Oslo, but with additions, just irritates the user, unless details follow.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- 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):
- One image plus the logo is very limited, yet it passes the criteria. With most images still in private domain, it is understandable that finding images is difficult. But perhaps a contemporary image of Cortina could be added? I also made the background on the logo transperant.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- I am placing the article on hold. What is written is good, but the lack of coverage of the actual events, plus the other parts mentioned in criterion 3 make it impossible to meet the GA criteria. I have no problem placing the article on hold white improvements are made, though I would like to comment that there is a lot that needs writing. Thankfully, you seem to master the other criteria, so that part should go smoothly. Arsenikk (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Passing article. Congratulations!
- I am placing the article on hold. What is written is good, but the lack of coverage of the actual events, plus the other parts mentioned in criterion 3 make it impossible to meet the GA criteria. I have no problem placing the article on hold white improvements are made, though I would like to comment that there is a lot that needs writing. Thankfully, you seem to master the other criteria, so that part should go smoothly. Arsenikk (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Thanks for your time and your review. The article is better because of it!! H1nkles (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)