Talk:Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 09:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

Hello, I'll review this. Will be in touch soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria

Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Mostly good now after some necessary corrections completed, but please see the questions below. Done.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. No MOS problems now, though some copyediting has been necessary.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided. Just one sentence needing citation: see below. Done.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. No problems.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. The reflist is fine.
No original research. No problems.
No copyright violations or plagiarism. No problems.
Broad in its coverage. Only a short article but the coverage is excellent and very informative. Completely within scope.
Neutral. Fully meets NPOV by being objective throughout.
Stable. No problems.
Illustrated, if possible. Apart from the flag, none, and would not really expect any so this is not applicable.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright. As above.

Questions

This is looking quite good overall and it's encouraging to find coverage of a small nation like Nauru. I'm placing the review on hold for the moment because there are a couple of things that need to be addressed.

I didn't understand the words "outside of direct qualifying position" (used twice) and, in the context, I think both instances needed to be rephrased as "outside of direct qualification". I'm wondering if a brief explanation of "direct qualification" might help the readers with an indication of Uera's position in the rankings.
A citation or two is needed for the sentence about Marcus Stephen. While I know from his WP article that the statement is true, it still needs to be cited. Also, I changed the word "notorious" in this sentence to "notable" because I cannot see any reason for notoriety there. Would you please check the wording? If there is notoriety involved, a brief explanation would help.

Look forward to your reply. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker:

I reworded the first instance and removed the second instance. See [1]
Added a citation. Thanks for the edit. See [2]

-- Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of review

@DatGuy: Thanks for the citation and the judo edit. I'm more than happy to pass this now. Well done and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]