Talk:2010 Summer Youth Olympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CRwikiCA (talk · contribs) 18:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this nomination, please allow for some time, seeing that this will be my first review. CRwikiCA talk 18:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Overall the article is well-written and it seems to be almost there for GA status. I would suggest several minor adjustments.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
In the Sports section, it reads "was represented by a pictogram (different from the ones above)", there are no pictograms, so this sentence is unclear. The link in "They may be viewed here" is dead. The article is well written throughout, feel free to read through it and copy-edit minor things.
Addressed CRwikiCA talk 13:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
~~The lead is short for the length of the article and does not discuss some major parts of the article, including the organization and ceremony parts. The other four aspects are fine.~~
The lead is greatly improved. CRwikiCA talk 15:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
The exact number of athletes does not seem to be available from the ref in the lead, is this a simple sum per WP:CALC (also consider listing the total in the participation section)? The number in the lead does not match the number in the infobox. The calendar is not referenced. The organization did not have an official medal table, was the table published anywhere though? The number of participants per country is not sourced for all countries, how were these numbers obtained?
~~Partially resolved. Medal table discussion below shows that the last issue will be resolved as well.CRwikiCA talk 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
Resolved CRwikiCA talk 15:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
It describes what can be expected. The only thing that is "missing" is an aftermath or legacy section. I do not know whether there is a notable storyline here, but if there is, it should be included.
There might at this point in time not be notable content for a legacy or aftermath section, this does not mean this would never be the case. Right now the article includes what should be included. CRwikiCA talk 15:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Overall it is somewhat biased, the only place which is somewhat skewed is the sports section which focuses on the medals of Singapore, the host country. This should be slightly expanded to include notable multi-medal winning participants and overall medal tables winners/top 3.
Resolved CRwikiCA talk 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Overall the article looks good, although some additional work is needed. Some of this might be slightly difficult to source due to the organizations website being offline now. This nomination has been posted 31 March 2014, which is four months ago. Please confirm that someone is willing to take on the work that needs to be done. CRwikiCA talk 19:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Passed after revisions. CRwikiCA talk 15:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on this review. Singapore is celebrating Hari Raya Puasa. I will follow up later in the week. Could you clarify how the article is "very biased"? --Hildanknight (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it, "very biased" was not the right term to use, sorry about that. The slight bias is the lack of depth discussing the results from countries outside of the host country. Very well, take some time for the revisions, I also understand there has not been any major edit for quite some time. So I will not enforce a strict seven day deadline as long as progress is being made. CRwikiCA talk 13:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been two weeks since your statement that you will "follow up" later in the week. Only one minor edit to the page has been made since. If you do not have the time to address these issues in the coming days, it might be better to fail the GA, work on the suggestions later, and at your leisure, and relist once you are satisfied with all improvements. CRwikiCA talk 19:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since only one Youth Olympics has been held (the second takes place later this month), there is no "notable storyline" for a Legacy section. In international sporting events, the performance of the host nation usually attracts additional scrutiny, so I feel that the Sports section is not "biased". Having removed the dead link and the mention of the pictogram, I will expand the lead section and investigate the figures shortly. Apologies for the delay. --Hildanknight (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A possible Legacy (or alternatively named section could include that the event was successful enough to be repeated, what happened with the venues and how it impacted the host nation. Most media typically focus on their own country, not necessarily the host, as such the Sports section needs some attention. CRwikiCA talk 13:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the Sports section again, I feel that the details of the two silver medals that Singapore won could be excessive, so I removed these details. Since all venues had existed before Singapore bid for the Games, nothing "happened" to them. The three medal tables that I found (the IOC did not keep an official tally either) have slight discrepancies, so perhaps the medal table should be removed. --Hildanknight (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revisit the other points when you have completed the other changes you name in your edit history. What are the differences for the displayed part of the medal table. I do not think it should be removed, if it could somehow be sourced. CRwikiCA talk 22:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The xinmsn and OCAsia tables give Russia 19 golds and 15 silvers, Ukraine 10 golds and 14 bronzes, South Korea 5 silvers and Italy 6 golds, while the Olympics Universe website and the Wikipedia article itself give Russia 18 golds and 14 silvers, Ukraine 9 golds and 15 bronzes, South Korea 4 silvers and Italy 5 golds. The sources disagree and, more importantly, are any of them reliable enough to be used as a source for the medal table in this article? If the table is removed, we could still mention that China was the most successful nation (with 30 golds and 51 medals overall), followed by Russia (its second place is not in dispute). --Hildanknight (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Singapore 2010 website has gone offline, its archives remain available through the Wayback Machine. I cannot find a page with the entire calendar, but the calendar for each sport can be verified by following the links from the Sports section. Could you strike that issue and offer feedback on my ongoing rewrite of the lead section? --Hildanknight (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is unfortunate for the medal table, but I agree with your solution. Very well for the calender, I would recommend adding something like "Source: " and then a ref or link to that page just underneath the calendar. The lead is majorly improved, I would recommend the following to make the lead more of a summary of the article: A bit more about the organisation and some text about the ceremonies. CRwikiCA talk 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since external links should not be in the main body of an article, I added half a sentence and tacked the citation to the colon at the end. I also replaced the unsourced and conflicting numbers of young athletes with the approximate figure found in the source. Would you consider the Olympic Council of Asia and Olympics Universe websites reliable sources? --Hildanknight (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympic Council of Asia is a sub-IOC organization, which I would consider reliable. The Olympcs Universe is some fan website with a short history, so I cannot judge it's reliability, in case there is a WikiProject that has accepted it as reliable it might work, but otherwise it might be better to find other sources (if possible). CRwikiCA talk 13:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards removal of the Participation section. Is the number of participants per nation really that important? The first two paragraphs can be incorporated into other sections. What do you think? Are you satisfied with my resolution of the unreferenced calendar and total number of athletes? If so, please strike these concerns. --Hildanknight (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The number per country does not seem that relevant to me, stating that all NOC (except one where there would suffice), maybe list the biggest participator (Singapore, although the ref seems dead) and merge shortened sections as appropriate. Calendar and total number of athletes are resolved now. CRwikiCA talk 20:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall it is getting close, I am confident the remaining issues will be mostly addressed in the next week, assuming you have some time available. You removed a section about Pound's criticism of the games. This might not be fully applicable to this article, but it is very relevant for the Youth Games as a whole, seeing his status in the IOC at that time. I would lean towards including it either in this article, Youth Olympic Games article or both (assuming the sources check out). CRwikiCA talk 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CRwikiCA: The criticism belongs in the Youth Olympic Games article, not here, so it should not affect this review. My rewrite of the lead section is complete, so please help copyedit and give feedback. Further investigation on the medal table discrepancies suggests they are due to whether medals by mixed-NOCs teams are awarded to "mixed-NOCs" or to the countries the competitors are from. Perhaps we should seek some input from WikiProject Olympics regarding this issue. --Hildanknight (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I copy-edit the lead. It looks well-improved now, but I reserve my final comments for when the whole article is complete. Feel free to solicit feedback from the Olympic WP, but note that the GA protocol does not take long waiting times for community consensus into account. Because of the discrepancies in sources, I do not think you can safely state one medal table, you might want to say something about the lack of official table and that various sources do not know how to handle mixed-NOC team medals and then ref the different tables you found before. CRwikiCA talk 17:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week since the last edit. Are you still going to continue to work on the revisions to the article? The whole process has taken over a month by now. If you do not have the time to make the updates in the near future, then let me know this. CRwikiCA talk 18:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics a few days ago, but nobody replied, so I will continue looking into the medal table issue (the only remaining concern). --Hildanknight (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that project is semi-active, then there is indeed no need to wait for them. Let me know when you are happy with your changes. I will need to do a full re-read then, because the initial review was a while ago. CRwikiCA talk 14:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No further edits have been made since my last comments, if no improvements are forthcoming on short notice I will fail the nomination, seeing how some larger changes still would need to be made to this article. CRwikiCA talk 15:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CRwikiCA: Per this reply, I decided to use the table from xinmsn. --Hildanknight (talk) 07:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main medal table article is now different from the top 10 in the article here, that would probably need an explanation. The key is also at the end of a line, maybe rephrase the last sentence to something like: See 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table for a full list with the mixed-NOC medals separate. Let me know when you are happy with the version of the article and want me to re-review it. You might want to carefully read through it once more and copy-edit details where necessary. CRwikiCA talk 14:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence reworded per your suggestion. To be honest, this article was written by AngChenrui (now inactive) with the help of other Singaporean Wikipedians a long time ago. I am polishing it as part of a Singapore GA drive. Please go ahead with your second review. --Hildanknight (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now passed the article after it has been greatly improved by Hildanknight's edits. Congratulations! This GA drive is a worthy endeavor, please note that you are not listed as having performed any GA reviews yourself. This kind of reciprocity would be greatly valued and would also reduce the GA backlog if you would include quid pro quo as a goal in the GA drive as well. Keep up the good work! CRwikiCA talk 15:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]