Talk:Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 10:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to review this article TRM! I just wanted to note that, although the recent history may make it appear as if this article fails the stability criteria, per the section above we have come to an agreement that whatever the GA reviewer says about the issues in contention (specifically, the amount of detail in the article and the existence of the "Competitors" section), we will abide by. Canadian Paul 14:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Don't bold link Egypt, and trying to force a bold intro is pretty pointless if you ask me. No need for bold at all.
Regarding the lead, I know Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics has more to discuss, but it may be worth thinking about merging the background section into the lead, as right now it's a little weak and aesthetically discouraging, i.e. it doesn't make me want to continue reading...
Infobox, closing ceremony flag bearer is not referenced, while opening ceremony bearer is.
Per WP:ACCESS and MOS:DTT please put at least col scopes in the tables to help screen-reading software describe the tables more comprehensively.
Consider linking the opening and closing ceremony articles.
"20[note 2] different sports." I'd put the note after the full stop, it's not far away from the disputed issue and would look far better.
From section to section, no major need to relink and re-abbreviate things, such as EOC.
"selected a team of 115 athletes, 79 men and 36 women" vs "A total of 109 Egyptians, 75 men and 34 women", it's not immediately clear why these numbers are different.
"donating gear" doesn't sound encyclopaedic, perhaps "donating sports equipment" or similar?
"Notable athletes in the Egyptian team..." problem with this is that all athletes that compete in the Olympics are considered "notable" by Wikipedia. Perhaps you could rephrase this to discuss something like "Athletes representing Egypt included...." and discuss those you consider important enough for individual discussion.
"Note that reserves in fencing, field hockey, football, and handball are not counted as athletes." do you just mean "are not included"?
"Egypt qualified two archers..." this phrasing is used commonly, it seems a little odd to me, maybe its an ENGVAR issue. I'd have expected it to say "Two Egyptian archers qualified for..."
Avoid over-capitalisation in tables, etc. For instance, you have "Opposition Score" -> "Opposition score" is just fine.
Maybe a personal thing, but the widths of each of the qualifying rounds in the tables changes (I expect because the text is wider or narrower), but it looks messy and unclear.
Consistency: quarterfinal or quarter-final?
"He had won three medals" who had? The subject is ambiguous.
Suggest you consider linking technical terms like "recurve".
You have the width, because of the narrow table, you could add images of Egyptian athletes if available to brighten the article up a little.
"In London scored 644 points in " grammar issue.
"She was bested by.." odd phrasing. "defeated by" is more encyclopaedic.
"but failed to show up" that's true, but it's non encyclopaedic language, can we clarify this?
"he A qualifying standard" would that be "A-qualifying"?
"There he found himself in the same heat..." less tabloid please, perhaps, "He was placed in the same heat.."
Seems a little undue to mention this as well, since he wasn't just pipped at the post, he finished 8th, so the fact Rushida was in the heat was somewhat irrelevant.
"throw of 60.26" where are the units here et seq?
"Olympics, Hadia Hosny El Said. Hosny, a veteran of the " -> "Olympics, Hadia Hosny El Said. A veteran of the ... she..."
"Ranked No. 102" number. Or 102nd.
"pool" -> the linked article refers to it as a group.
Why is BYE in capitals?
"Qualification Legend" -> legend.
On that note, not all tables have such legends. I'd be consistent.
Karim El-Zoghby should have an article! At least a stub, Olympic appearance confers Wikipedia notability, no questions asked. Same applies to all Egyptian Olympians mentioned in this article.
"12 fencers, six men and six women" MOSNUM, so I'd say "twelve".
"by coming in third" it's not a boat, the team "came third".
"to the Knockout stage" no need for capital K.
"...Olympics.[55] view · talk" view talk? Something odd here.
Avoid the use of a hash to represent "number"
Not one single of the footballers had a cap? Or a goal? What's the context for these columns?
"Over-aged player." define that please."12 men and one woman"

Up to Gymnastics. Will save my "progress". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments II

Perhaps link "artistic" and "rhythmic" appropriately.
"He had been individual.." -> "He was"
"came in 12th." again, not a boat, he "came 12th" or "finished 12th".
Link things like "pommel horse" first time, not second time.
"the number two and three ranked" -> "second- and third-ranked..."
" El-Zeiny was 53rd on the balance beam, but finished last" seems harsh but was last 54th or 154th or what? No context.
No key for the Artistic tables, i.e. what's F, PH, etc.? I know there's "float over" text, but a key should be provided.
"only two of which advanced beyond " remove "only".
"as well as a the runner-up" grammar.
"but he lost in the opening" -> "but lost in the opening"
"a veteran of the,2004 and 2008 Games" grammar.
"on the international scene" -> "internationally"
What are "MP points"?
"N/A" and "BYE" (yuck) are missing from the "Qualification Legend" (sic).
What is a struck-through DNF?
" Ahmed Habash. Habash took up the sport as a t" -> don't repeat the surnames so quickly, you could just say "He took up..."
"The woman, American-born..." reads a little odd...
"came in second in the doubles" boat again. Just "came second".
"12 men and one woman" WP:MOSNUM twelve and one or 12 and 1.
"he bested Ecuador's" again, he defeated, or he beat or something less odd than "bested".
Avoid SHOUTING in the references. There's no need to CAPITALISE athletes' names, or article titles.

Plenty to look at, I'll put it on hold for a week. I have to say that these comments are from a quick run-through, there may be many more to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I believe that I have taken care of many of these, and I have the following comments:

My only concern with merging the "background" section into the lead is that it would violate WP:LEAD's provision of not including information in the lead that is not present in the body of the article. If you are of the opinion, however, that the background section consists of only "trivial basic facts" that are exempted by the policy, then I have no other objection to the merge.
Since this is finals week, I don't have time to tinker with any of the table fixes at the moment, but I will take care of those this weekend, when I can devote time to do them properly.
Regarding the "Egypt qualified" language, I feel like that's accepted usage, but I could not find any easily accessible proof. When I have more time after this week, I'll look around and change the wording if it's improper usage.
I removed signification portions of the "competitors" section; it was added by another user and I disagreed with much of it for more or less the same reasons that you did.
The "qualifying standards" notation actually puts the letter in quotation marks per the IAAF. I've fixed that.
I generally included the information about Rushida (and Bolt for that matter) just to vary up the sentence structure a bit, instead of having a stream of "he placed this, he placed that" etc. If it's really a problem, it can be removed.
The "team roster" section is actually a template, hence the "view talk" issue. Since the roster is incorrect anyways (or, at least, requires qualification), I will try to see what I can do about this, as well as the "hash", "cap and goal columns", and "over age" issues (which are also part of the template).
The second "pommel horse" links to the specific event, not a general description. I didn't link any of the gymnastic exercises to their general description; should I?
The reference shouting was in the original source, but there's probably a policy somewhere that mentions converting those, so I'll take care of that this weekend as well.

As I mentioned above, I am in the midst of finals week right now, so I probably won't reply again here until the weekend (I had no way of knowing that this would be reviewed during winter finals week when I nominated it last November!), at which point I will take care of all of the concerns that I have not yet addressed, as well as any new ones that you provide. Canadian Paul 20:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, let me know how you get on. The week on hold isn't hard and fast as long as I get some feedback on how things are going so I know when to re-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be done now, except for the concerns that are related to the football template, my comments/questions above, and the following:

"Opposition" and "Score" are purposely on two different lines for the data: they refer to the name of the opposition, and then the score, which are stacked on top of each other in the table. In other words, that cell is not for "opposition score" but "opposition" and "score". This is consistent with other Olympic GAs and articles, such as Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics.
I need a little clarification on your comment about "the widths of each of the qualifying rounds in the tables". Do you mean the tables across all of the sports? Because each of the events has different metrics through which performance is judged, so I feel like it would be really awkward to try and get them all to look alike.

I'll take a look at the football templates shortly, but I need a break. In any case, I believe that I have addressed everything that's in the actual body of the article. Canadian Paul 19:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Paul and The Rambling Man, I think you should open a broad discussion on WikiProject Olympics because you're addressing countless problems and concerns on the table style, reference format, grammatical errors, description, redlinked athletes, consistency and conciseness issues, and vice versa regarding the articles on the country pages.

Raymarcbadz 09:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right but I'm reviewing this article in isolation, as a GAN, and yes, I think there are many issues. If you firmly believe that they should impact other such articles, that's probably outwith the remit of this particular review. And in all honesty, while there are so many issues, I have neither the time nor inclination to deal with the Olympics project people who, no doubt, will have their own "approach" to these issues. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright TRM, I believe that I have addressed every concern that is possible for me to address. I'm ready for what's next. Canadian Paul 01:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further

No need for the overcapitalisation throughout, e.g. "Opposition Score", should just be "Opposition score". "Opposition Result" should just be "Opposition result" etc.
What is the "v" in the football score template?
Why not crop the Islam El Shehaby image and put it at the top of the judo section to avoid all the white space I'm currently seeing?
Struck-through DNF not listed in the Sailing key.
What is M*? I know what M is...
Some key items have the underlining with the ? and appear in the key, others just have the underlining the the ? What's the strategy? Why not be consistent?

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the capitalisation issues, see my comment above: "Opposition" and "Score" are purposely on two different lines for the data: they refer to the name of the opposition, and then the score, which are stacked on top of each other in the table. In other words, that cell is not for "opposition score" but "opposition" and "score". This is consistent with other Olympic GAs and articles, such as Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics.

Ok, but just because it's good in one place, it doesn't make it right...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree that there is any problem here and would consider this so far outside the purview of a GA review that it need not be debated in this context. If I bring it to FA and there's a consensus to change it there, I will. Canadian Paul 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "v" is there because the results are listed in a template. I am not sure that that can be gotten rid of.

The obvious answer is to avoid using the template if there are visual artefacts that are unnecessary or undesirable. Or to get the template changed so the mysterious "v" disappears when used in this context. The use of a template called Template:2012 Summer Olympics men's football game C2 seems particularly absurd since this isn't a template at all, it's a single use....! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who originally created the template, so I'm not sure what to say, except that I think that the results template is intended for use in other articles as well. In any case, I would want extra opinions before I go copy and pasting templates into the body of the article. Canadian Paul 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The struck-through DNF is listed as a struck-through X in the key, since this is a general key and X could be a point-value or a DNF (if the competitor had no DNF results, the lowest result would be struck)
For consistency, all tool tips have been removed and migrated to the key.

Canadian Paul 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of responses added. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's been while, I'm still concerned over the length of the lead, for such an article it really needs to be longer, I understand your concerns over the inclusion of information that then isn't noted elsewhere, but WP:LEAD would imply we need a couple more paragraphs here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've failed this for the moment. It's vastly improved since I first checked it out, so that's a huge positive. I'd like more work on the lead, I'd like to avoid blind usage of templates where they provide odd and unexplainable results, and I'd like some improvements to the appearances of the various tables throughout. It's a big project as has been noted above, all changes will affect hundreds of pages. But it's a good start, I certainly favour off-GAN discussions to improve these articles, and I'll happily provide consultation on that. In the meantime, sorry for the slow responses, but I hope the review has helped crystallise a few ideas for general improvements throughout all of these articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I feel that it is unacceptable to hold me to some standard that has nothing to do with the Good Article Criteria when dozens upon dozens of articles on US Street with barely any content pass on a routine basis. I'm going to ask for a community reassessment on this one. Canadian Paul 22:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm sure you'll find someone who will pass it without paying due consideration to the outstanding issues. Sure they may not be explicitly prescribed by the GA criteria, but they remain unaddressed. Sorry you found the conclusion so ridiculous, I won't take on your GANs in the future (and spend hours reviewing them) to avoid this unpleasant conclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]