Talk:Afghanistan at the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! It's been awhile since I've done a GA review. I picked this one as it's relevantly short and hopefully easy for me to do :)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
flow is good.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Doesn't meet words to watch "notably" for the lead statement about Nikpai, making it sounds not neutral.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
sources are reliable and support the statisics in the article.

C. It contains no original research:
Tripartite Commission statement in the Judo section is OR. Other statements in background, athletic and judo need citations in order to prove verifiability. Athletics paragraph is the primary concern as judo / background only have a few statements that arent backed by sources.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig checks out with 1.0%. Possibly reword the "full body kit" part but otherwise looks good.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
off topic statements in the judo section
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
a few issues in the lead and judo sections per 1b and 3b.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
not applicable

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
not applicable
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Lead

The Sports Reference citation says Rio 2016 makes Afghanistan their fourteenth Olympic appearance, not thirteenth. --Fixed.Y
"In the absence of taekwondo fighters, most notably Rohullah Nikpai" - Doesn't sound neutral to me as it suggests if Nikpai competed that year, Afghanistan would have won a medal. I suggest removing the quoted part only. --I mean, he's won two bronze Olympic medals. I'd say it's fine.
- @DatGuy: I think it's a side comment as it assumes the reader knows that Nikpai won the two bronze medals without reading the previous articles. It also doesn't mean a previous medallist would necessary win a medal again. Promtional maybe or WP:EDITORIALIZING as it doesn't sound neutral. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC) Y[reply]
"Rereading the lead, "In the absence of" suggests WP:WEASEL as well, as it assumes that Afghanistan didn't win a medal cause Nikpai didn't compete at all. There's no source in the article to back it up. Also inaccurate as Afghnistan did compete in taekwondo in 2016, so there wasn't an absence of taekwondo fighters at all. I suggest rewording this sentence to reflect what's already included in the following paragraph(s). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: I'm not sure how to include it then. It seems important enough information that I'd like to keep it. Also, they did not participate in any taekwondo events in Rio. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 06:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead would have to reflect what is already written in the article (i.e Background). The sentence currently is written, to me, "since A happened before, B happened now". It'd have to be rewritten so the reader doesn't suggest that Nikpai's absence in Rio affected their medal count. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: Fine now? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me as it's neutral and reflects the other paragraphs.

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last time Afghanistan won a medal was in 2008, not 2004 based on the Sports Reference citation as well. --They last failed to win a medal in 2004. Text makes sense to me.Y
- Ah, I thought you meant they failed to win a medal in 2004. Okay. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The number of Summer Olympic appearances between 1936 Berlin and 2016 Rio is twelve, not six (Sports Reference). --Fixed Y
There were 25 Olympians for Afghanistan at 1948 London, not 31 (Sports Reference ref). --fixed. Not sure where all these inaccuracies came from. Y
I suggest adding another reference that says both medals won by Afghanistan were in taekwondo, otherwise perhaps reword to say both medals were won by Rohullah Nikpai as that specific Sports Reference page doesn't mention the sport, only the medallist. --Done.Y
"The Afghanistan National Olympic Committee sent a total of three athletes to the Games, trimming into half of the roster from London 2012." source needed / place before the sports reference citation as it supports it. --Moved.Y
"Track sprinters Abdul Wahib Zahiri and Kamia Yousufi received their spots to compete in athletics by wild card entries," source needed as it's not in the IOC or sports reference citations. --I dont believe there's a reference that directly states this. "NOCs with no male or female qualified athlete or relay team will be allowed to enter their best male athlete and their best female athlete in one athletic event each"
- In that case, the sentence would need to be rewritten if there's no source for wild card entries or removed altogether if it's not verified at all. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rewritten. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Y[reply]
"Track sprinters Abdul Wahib Zahiri and Kamia Yousufi competed in athletics" true but it's not mentioned in the IOC source #3. You might want to bundle citations for this sentence. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The addition of the rio2016 archived ref works for this one (i had to click on full list in the Athletes & Teams section to see it, but it's the same link). Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After rereading the background section (as of May 11th), I believe this has too much trivia per criteria 3b. I think the 1948 Summer Olympics sentence should be removed completely. Y
"Afghanistan has won a total of two bronze medals" - should be past tense as the rest of the paragraph is in past tense. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Y[reply]

Athletics

The IAAF source does not mention Zahiri nor Yousufi received universality slots. New source is needed to support that both Zahiri and Yousufi qualified, or a source for each competitor as the IAAF citation is only for men's events. --~~See above~~ Rewritten.Y
Source needed to confirm Zahiri's and Yousufi's Olympic debut as the BBC and Bangalore Mirror sources do not mention that it was their first time in the Olympics, nor talk about Zahiri at all. --AddedY
Not sure if mentioning that Yousufi wore a hijab/kit is trivia. If it's indeed important, then I'm fine with it being kept (may need a source beside the "due to their countries' Islamic culture" part). --I'd say if it's notable enough for BBC to have two paragraphs and a headline on it, it's non-trivial enough for the article. Removed parenthesis part.
- @DatGuy: It is important but I'm thinking whether that part should be left for Youaufi's individual article or have it in this overview article as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say it's fine to keep. It indicates towards religion in Afghanistan. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was worried it'd be out of scope but Criteria 3b seems to be passed here as it's addressed in a summary and can't go into detail in Yousufi's article. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Y[reply]
Mentioning that Abuljadayel of Saudi Arabia also wore a hijab/kit as well seems out of focus as this is the Afghanistan Olympic article, not Saudi Arabia. I suggest not including it and leave it for the Saudi Arabia 2016 Olympic article. --Removed Y
- Otherwise "full-body kit and hijabs" almost word for word of BBC source. Reword? (especially the full-body kit part). --Doesn't seem necessary.
  - I googled "full body kit" and have not found any results to suggest it's a common term. Same with "athlete kit". I suggest rewording the full body kit only and the rest would pass WP:LIMITED --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The words are seperate. Full-body, meaning covering the whole body, and kit, meaning apparel for something like a sport. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @DatGuy: True, but I'm not sure whether it is basic enough to pass under WP:LIMITED. I've asked for a 2nd opinion for this point only. It's better for me to double check and be 100% certain before a tick is passed or not for this one. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Per the 2nd opinion below, I'll check this part per WP:LIMITED. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Y[reply]
The BBC source doesn't mention Yousufi didn't qualify for the next round, only that she finished in last at her heat. --Added SportsReferenceY
- The BBC and Bangalore Mirror sources doesn't specifically state that Yousufi was the national record for Afghanistan at the 2016 Rio Olympics. The way I'm reading the Bangladore Mirror source is that Yousufi. who went to the 2016 Rio Olympics, is the National Record holder with a best of 13.94. A different source would be needed to say she made the National Record at the 2016 Olympics with 14.02 seconds (BBC only confirms the time, not record). --Added the PDF report
  - PDF report not opening for me. The website itself also doesn't look reliable. I recommend looking for a more reliable source. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @MrLinkinPark333: Just added the archive. Do you mean the report? The website is the file-hosting service of the official Rio 2016 site. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - After some searching, smsprio2016 is mentioned in a page by the united states equestrian team, so I'm willing to AGF this source as it does confirm the NR for Yousufi. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Y[reply]
The 100m men's event IAAF link needs to be adjusted as it's pointing to the heats which Zahiri did not compete. He's in the preliminary round link though. --Fixed Y
- He is. The preliminary round link has a separate URL though. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judo

Sources needed for the "invitation from the Tripartite Commission" (Original research) and "Afghanistan's second consecutive Olympics with a judoka" parts. The rio 2016 source only states the event and result. --RemovedY
The addition of the TOLOnews article brings a couple of issues:
- It doesn't mention that Bakhski was a captain at the Olympics. If you mean captain as leading the Judo team, then "captained and represented" is redundant Y
- grammar issue at "captained and represented Afghanistan in men's judo and participate" Y
- his national team and medal performance before the Olympics seems out of scope and more suitable for his individual article, not for the 2016 Olympics article Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
out of scope for referencing Faizzada's 2012 loss in the round of 64. As this is the 2016 article, I suggest this part to be removed. --RemovedY
Mentioning Fonseca's loss and Krpálek's win is out of scope as well as neither competitor are for Afghanistan. Removal is definitely recommended. --RemovedY

Overall

Overall, the article has a mixture of passed and not passed criteria. The article is stable, flows well with grammar/spelling (apart from the new source addition on May 10th), has reliable sources, references and addressed main topics. For what needs to be addressed:

1) Words to watch / Neutrality: the "notably" statement about Nikpai needs removal.
2) Original research / Verification needed: statements throughout the background, athletic and judo sections needs additional or replacement sources
3) Focused on topic: there are some out of scope issues in the judo section (maybe athletics as well, but judo primarily).
Other: a bit of inaccuracy in the lead/background section statistics Y. Possible word for word / trivia in athletics but I'm flexible if you disagree.

This article is not ready to be passed yet. However, since some of the issues look quick enough to be addressed, I'll put it on hold for a week then recheck from there. If you have any comments/questions, ping me here and I'll answer. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: I've done all the requested changes. Please take a look if they fit the criteria. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: I've looked through today's edits and updated the review accordingly with additional comments. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: Edits at, [1] current version also has archive for the first reference. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: I've checked through today's edits. All looks good except for the rio2016 website which I can't access (archive.is doesn't help me either as the boxes aren't expandable). Only reason why I mention it is so I can verify the website has the info. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Recap of what's left to cover:

"most notably" sentence in the lead needs to be rewritten / removed as it sounds like WP:EDITORIALIZING and not neutral.
A few sentences I have to reread and decide whether it passes the criteria (hijan and full body kit sentences) and determine whehter the smsprio2016 ref is relialble). I also just added a few comments to the background after a reread. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: See this link -> 'sports competing in.' [2] for the changes requested. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Replied to edits and added some ticks. Also, as this hold is over 7 days, I'm willing to keep it open as most of the remaining issues are for me to weigh upon and there's only a couple of remaining issues. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Hi there. I was wondering if you were wanting to continue with this review? It's been a few days after your last edits to the article. Let me know your status with this GA review. Thanks. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy:Thanks for the reply in the lead. I left a comemnt for the lead, hijab and "full body kit" parts. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: The 2nd opinion of the full hijab part was completed today and ticked (see below). I also checked and ticked the smsprio2016 after some researching of other usages (see above). Therefore, since these two are done, I'm ready to pass this GA. Well done for your work, especially during the week that I was reviewing/placed the nom on hold. Keep up the good work! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion question

Hello. I was wondering if the phrase "full body kit and hijab" would fall under WP:LIMITED under the criteria "lack sufficient creativity to require attribution." The quote is in the same word for word in the BBC article without quotes. Particularly, I believe the "full body kit" could be reworded as hijab is a common word. If the phrase is indeed passes WP:LIMITED, then that works for me. Thanks. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have a tendency to put quote marks around even the smallest directly quoted phrase, sometimes single words, in my articles, to avoid any possibility of plagiarism. However, I am frequently told off over this at ACR and FAC and instructed to remove the quote marks, usually while being told that the case in point is WP:LIMITED. Even coming from this extreme, it seems clear to me that "full body kit and hijab" is WP:LIMITED. This is without considering that the phrase is not used in the article in relationship to Yousufi. I would be entirely relaxed about the sentence in question as it stands, with the attribution limited to the cite at the end. Happy to discuss further if that might help. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gog the Mild:. I was leaning towards WP:Limited as well but wasn't 100% sure as it was word for word. In this case, I'm willing to tick this point. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]