Talk:2014 Continental Cup of Curling

2014 Continental Cup of Curling 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.
Review: March 30, 2016. (Reviewed version).

2014 Continental Cup of Curling was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 1, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 Continental Cup of Curling/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheQ Editor (talk · contribs) 16:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. The review should be done within a week. Thanks, ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 16:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still actively busy with it? If so, perhaps you could post parts of your review here at this page so that others can see the proceedings. Thank you, Kareldorado (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As TheQ Editor's most recent edits were opening this review and pre-submitting it for the GA Cup on July 13, over five weeks ago—the review was not done in the promised week or close to it—I'm declaring this review abandoned and putting the nomination back into the reviewing pool. The nomination was originally submitted over seven months ago, and it's the second-oldest submission. Since the GA Cup is ongoing, and the ten oldest articles receive the largest bonus, I have no doubt the nomination will be picked up within the next few days. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 Continental Cup of Curling/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 11:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will start soon.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments:

Citations in the lead are unecessary
First Paragraph in the "Teams" section lacks a citation.
Last sentence in the stats section needs a citations
Seven Dead links

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomandjerry211 (alt), it looks to me that this nominated article has a fundamental flaw: it fails criterion 1b, in that it doesn't comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections. The reason that there are citations in the lead of this article is that the information cited doesn't appear in the body of the article, so the only place to cite it is the only place it appears: the lead. This is a clear violation of the guideline, which states, Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. The bulk of the lead needs to be placed in the body of the article, with the lead pared down so it serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. Citations in the lead are only appropriate when there is a quote (which must always be cited where it occurs), or if there is a controversial fact (even if cited in the body). BlueMoonset (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Over 7 days with no action, so I'll have to fail this. Feel free to renominate anytime.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2014 Continental Cup of Curling. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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} 16:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2014 Continental Cup of Curling/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article still needs a little bit more improvement. All items in the lead have to be in the body. There are also some issues on the previous review left to cover. After those issues are rectified, I will welcomely promote the article.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the following:

Added citation to first paragraph in the "Teams" section
Added citation to last sentence in the stats section
fixed all remaining dead links

In addition, I would be inclined to believe that the information in the lede is either covered in the remainder of the article or is essentially basic as it pertains to the topic of the article. The first and last paragraphs of the lede fall under the latter category, and the second and third paragraphs fall under the former category. Please let me know what you think. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed one more issue and will pass soon. Good Job, --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLDTITLE

Letting you know that wikilinks are not allowed in the bold reiteration of the lead. Compliance with this section of MOS is a Good Article criteria (1b). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2014 Continental Cup of Curling. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/Right+North+America+Continental/9398519/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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} 16:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]