Talk:Bangladesh at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bangladesh at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dipankan001 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Prose all right.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	I'd like to see "Sarkar ranked sixth overall in the semifinal round for 100m Women race", where "Sarkar" has a link to the person.	Neutral

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	References checked. No problem found except Ref. 6 with a little signal problem.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Sources are pretty well and fine	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	I'd have from my side liked to see a bit more content.	Neutral
(b) (focused)	It is not out of topic or irrelevant.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No bias found; sources given for questionable sentences.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit wars; major editors are Vibhijain and Srirarkashyap	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Very few images; I'm not satisfied.	Fail
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	No notes.	Fail

Result

Result	On a more close look I see that there was a recent copyright problem. Article is also going through a major copyedit at the moment. Sorry not a GA, though, but feel free to renominate after problems have been cleared.
Fail	Going through a copyedit at the moment; nominate later. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 17:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

No discussion here.

GA?

Copyvio issues aside (as signaled on my talk page by another editor), the writing in this article is in no way up to GA standards. I've already made one copyedit and I'll make a few more to indicate what I'm talking about. IMO, the GA designation should be yanked until that (and maybe other issues) is resolved. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've put forward the reason. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 17:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Your reason is completely unclear. I thought the possibly copyvio was handled via attribution in an edit summary, so please explain. Also, you really need to address the problems I signaled: how is it you passed an article with so many obvious writing problems? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Going through a copyedit at the moment; nominate later. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 05:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Where's GA2?

GA2 isn't transcluded here. Should a bot do this, or is it manual? --Stfg (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bangladesh at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dom497 (talk · contribs) 03:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   See comment section. Good.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   No pictures included in the article. Good.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

Comments

• Pictures, pictures, pictures!!! At least try to get one picture, even if its a photo of just the stadium that the event took place at!

The article will be on hold for 7 days to try to find at least one picture.--Dom497 (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oakley77 has added one, but I don't think that there are more. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dom497. Please see WP:GACN#(6) Appropriately illustrated, especially the "mistakes to avoid" and the paragraph beginning "If images have not been included ...". Criterion 6a does not require images; it requires that any present "are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content". This article satisfies that requirement. The desire to have images is dealt with in criterion 6b, not 6a. I've searched the commons in the hope of finding one of the stadium, but I think Vaibhav is right: there appears to be none. Best, --Stfg (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I know that. Even though pictures a requirement of the GA criteria, I always say having a picture is always better then not.--Dom497 (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

More comments

I'm not satisfied with the review of this article. So, please take care of these few comments:

1. Wikilink athletics, boxing and swimming in lead (first references) to their corresponding articles.

   Question: doesn't that fail WP:OVERLINK and WP:LEADLINK? Everyone knows what these terms mean. --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   Not exactly. One maybe aware of athletics, boxing and swimming as the competitive sports but what about other useful information that one can only find in athletics at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games, boxing at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games and swimming at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games? — Bill william compton^Talk 05:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   They are linked from the {{main}} in each subsection (I've just added it for Swimming; already there for the other two). There's a problem with WP:LINKCLARITY, but OK, I'll live with it. --Stfg (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Use complete names of the athletes in lead, like Sarkar → Papia Rani Sarkar.
3. Wikilink Zambia to Zambia at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games.

   I'm uncomfortable with that on grounds of WP:LINKCLARITY. Would it be better to pipe it like this: [[Zambia at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games|of Zambia]]? --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   Absolutely, I don't see any problem in it. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   Done --Stfg (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

4. I'd say "backstroke and butterfly, respectively", similar for Islam.

   "respectively" twice in one sentence? --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   Certainly not, how about breaking a sentence into two? — Bill william compton^Talk 05:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   That would still be twice very close together. I've rephrased to bypass the problem. --Stfg (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

5. Either remove "newly independent" or give reference for the claim.
6. "winning one bronze medal", better to mention the sport in which medal was won.
7. Can you explain the role of Ref6 (publisher: publications.parliament.uk)?
8. "31 other countries", what's the definition of "countries" here? Not all Commonwealth of Nations members are sovereign states. Change to Commonwealth of Nations.

   Please don't conflate country with sovereign state; they are different things. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland took part as themselves, not as Britain or United Kindom. They are countries, and that is the right word here. The phrase Commonwealth of Nations refers to a (singular) commonwealth of (plural) nations, and the phrase "31 other Commonwealth of Nations" is ungrammatical. (By the way, the use of a similar phrase in 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games medal table is an error.) --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

   I suggested it because I couldn't think of any better word. But if you say using country for all types of territories (including sovereign, dependencies, Home Nations, etc) is the only solution then I'm okay with it. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

9. There's no Bangladesh National Olympic Committee. The organization's name is Bangladesh Olympic Association.
10. "The Bangladesh National Olympic Committee selected a delegation consisting of four officials and four competitors for the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games", whole sentence is unsourced.
11. "boxed in the bantamweight class", unsourced

    Sourced in FN13. --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

12. "was the only Bangladeshi athlete", the term "athlete" is colloquially used for the competitors. Change the sentence.

    Not colloquial; her sport is athletics. Compare swimmer and boxer. --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

    "Papia Rani Sarkar was the only Bangladeshi competitor taking part in athletics", doesn't it sound more clear? — Bill william compton^Talk 05:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

    OK, I've gone for "Papia Rani Sarkar was the only Bangladeshi competing in athletics." It's not too bad. --Stfg (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

13. "Sonia Akter and Anik Islam, the country's only two swimmers", appears to me like that there are only two swimmers in whole Bangladesh. Change the sentence.
14. Use hard space before all the SI units.
15. Wikilink England to England at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games.

    See above (Zambia). --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

16. Inline citation comes after the sentence for which the reference has been provided. Use Ref15 after the "backstroke" sentence.
17. "ranking 14th.^[14] and the 100 m", remove period after 14th and better to use both Ref14 and Ref17 at the end of the sentence.
18. Remove 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games medal table from the See also section as there's already a link to same article in the infobox.

— Bill william compton^Talk 14:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for your comments. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful review, Bill. But please would take care as to the extent of your requirements. On point 15, you are technically right, but MOS:NUM is not part of the GA criteria. Your points 5, 10 and 11 seem to me to fall foul of WP:GACN#(2) Factually accurate and verifiable. Points 16 and 17 involve matters of personal taste -- WP:CITEFOOT allow citations within sentences. Some of your other points involve personal taste too. How many of them are actually requirements for GA? --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Point 15 has nothing to do with MOS:NUM. Many countries (like Australia, Canada, etc) have their separate organizations for Olympics (Australian Olympic Committee) and Commonwealth Games (Australian Commonwealth Games Association). So, a reference should be provided that Bangladesh Olympic Association is responsible for all types of MSEs in Bangladesh. No, this is not a matter of personal taste, an inline citation is added close to the claim it supports. "She was also eliminated in the preliminary heat of the 50 m backstroke, ranking 22nd with a time of 36.00 seconds in the heats" is supported by Ref15 and "She did not start in the preliminary heat of the 50 m breaststroke" is mentioned in Ref16. — Bill william compton^Talk 05:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant point 14 when referring to MOSNUM. On 16 and 17, I thought you were saying there's a standard to put refs at the end of sentences not inside them. --Stfg (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done some more research on the "countries" question. The phrase "Commonwealth of Nations members" is factually incorrect: the UK is a member, and did not take part; England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not members, but did take part. Actually, "countries" is wrong too: several particpants are not countries, such as Gibraltar, Guernsey, Isle of Man and many others. However, the official results web site calls them "countries", so this is at least an officially accepted misnomer :) On first occurrence, I've copied the factually correct phrase "nations and territories" from the Commonwealth Games Federation web site. That's too long to repeat constantly, though, so I suggest following the games site (and several other Wikipedia articles) in using the term "countries" after the first occurrence. --Stfg (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll let you guys fix what every you think needs to be fixed before I pass the article.--Dom497 (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Vaibhav dealt with all of Bill's comments, so unless there's any objection to what I did about the nations-and-territories question, I reckon we're done. --Stfg (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be safe, I am going to wait a day or two.--Dom497 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm passing the article.--Dom497 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bangladesh at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110912014353/http://results.cygpune2008.com/allcountries.html to http://results.cygpune2008.com/allcountries.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)