Talk:Saint Lucia at the 2008 Summer Olympics

Saint Lucia at the 2008 Summer Olympics 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 27, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Caribbean: Saint Lucia Low‑importance

	Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Saint Lucia (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saint Lucia at the 2008 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 00:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Stating criteria for reference: A good article is—[reply]

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.

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.

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).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.

Well written

Lead summarises body. Nothing found in the lead is not found elsewhere, and cited in those locations. The prose is clear, concise and easy to read. Made one or two minor fixes to add a bit more clarity. No spelling errors that I can see. --LauraHale (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to match with the manual of style. Tables appear to be used appropriately and in compliance with the manual of style. --LauraHale (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Obligatory plagiarism check: [1][2][3] [4] No concerns. Where phrases appear, the are names or events and cannot be modified with out changing the meaning.

References are all properly formatted. They are consistently formatted. There are no broken links. --LauraHale (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources match the text and the information in the article is verifiable. --LauraHale (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Article appears broad in coverage. Would be nice to know if there was any welcome home recognition for the athletes, but as none medaled, this may not be necessary. It might also be nice to have additional information about television coverage and funding related to sending St Lucian athletes t the games. The article adequately covers the athletes who competed. Inclined to give this a pass, but if that information is available, it would be nice to included it, especially if the article may go further. --LauraHale (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I double-checked for sources (I even checked Newsbank) and I couldn't really find anything useful. I'm sure that there is something, but it most certainly is escaping my grasp at the moment. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Article appears neutral. The article does not give WP:UNDUE to any sections. It does not appear to suggest bias in the quality of the country's performance at the games. --LauraHale (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stable

Article appears stable, with very few edits. --LauraHale (talk)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Images appear to have the proper copyright. I removed the pictograms because they cannot be read by people with screenreaders. Please confirm that specific images have been looked for as they pertain to this nation and its athletes at the games, and that none were found. Once done, will give this section a pass. --LauraHale (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look. I couldn't find anything on the Commons. Of all the Internet images I saw, I couldn't confirm the copyright statuses of the images that weren't listed as "All Rights Reserved". I could contact Saint Lucia's Olympic committee and try to gain OTRS permissions for images, but it is a lot of red tape in really unfamiliar territory; I'm not quite sure even where to start. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

A comment or two regarding scope, confirmation that no copyright usable images are available for the article, and we're good to rock and roll. :) --LauraHale (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. It was really thorough! :) Let me know if there is anything else. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 03:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go then. :) Will pass. --LauraHale (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Saint Lucia at the 2008 Summer Olympics. 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:

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) 15:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]