Talk:Swaziland at the 1992 Winter Olympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: TripleRoryFan (talk · contribs) 21:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Overall well-written. The only thing I'm not sure of is in the Background section where it says "these Albertville Games were their first, and of 2018, only appearance", should this be "as of 2018"? Also the final sentence of the lead confused me a bit with the semi-colons which I think could also be commas instead.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Everything in the body of the article is clearly referenced with inline citations, all to reliable sources. No original research, no plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers everything there could really be to cover about a country sending one athlete, the only thing that's maybe too much detail is including every medal-winner but I think that's fine since it gives more context for Frasier's performances.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The only image in the article is the Swaziland flag in the infobox which is all good.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Well-written and comprehensive article considering there's so little to write about. Great work.

   Thanks for the review! Courcelles (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)