Talk:Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly/GA1

GA Review

Any comments are welcome Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 05:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

~~If no one has any objections left, I will pass this as a good article in 2 days. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 05:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)~~ Passed. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say pass away, it's definitely a good article. H1nkles (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
History is fine.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Passed

GA Peer Review Comments

Comments from User:Andrwsc

My only concern is that this article needs to be structured similar to the other Olympic event articles, per WP:WikiProject Olympics consensus. ~~For example, the heat results are formatted as a set of (unlabelled) independent tables, whereas all the other swimming articles identify the heat number.~~ There is also no "Records" section. Along the same lines, some of the content in this article is applicable to all swimming events for 2008, not just the men's 100 m fly. The "Venue" and "LZR Racer suits" sections should really be moved to the Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics article, as this article is essentially a WP:Summary style subsection of that. (I wouldn't think that duplicating that content on all 32 swimming event articles would be a good solution either.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One comment addressed, as indicated by strikeout text. Other concerns—esp. "Venue" and "LZR Racer suits" sections—still remain. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved these sections to the main Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics page (though the sections there may need reordering) leaving only a brief mention i the "Preview" section. Basement12 (T.C) 21:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:H1nkles

Thus far I have only reviewed the lead in depth. Here are my thoughts:

My understanding of the lead is that it is to be a good summary of the article. Editors should avoid duplicative citations. You have 7 citations in this lead, many of which are also referred to in the body of the article. Instead of suggesting that you cut down the number of citations I refer you to WP:LEADCITE for some further insight on citing the lead. If you feel as though the citations are warranted and required then keep them.

After reading over the policy, it appears that citations should not be kept, unless the subject is controversial. I've removed all the cittions, except for the ones talking about Cavic's controversial comments, the Serbian protest, and the controversial swimsuits and pool. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twice in the lead you say "beat him by one-hundredth of a second", I believe the correct verbage would be "one one-hundredth of a second". I'm not sure if there is consensus on how this should be written.

Changed, I'm pretty sure you're correct on the verbage. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a style issue but I would remove the words, "to call" from the following sentence: "Phelps' margin of victory was so close to call that the Serbian Team...." It's a matter of preference, "to call" can be a bit superfluous but it's up to you.

Changed to "Phelps' margin of victory was not clear...", is that any better? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the final sentence in the lead regarding the 4x100 metre medley relay. As the article currently stands I don't see where it has any bearing. H1nkles (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better - lead looks consistent with WP:LEADCITE. You had added one of the one one-hundredths, I added the other one. I also made a minor change from "was not clear..." to "was so close...." See if that flows a little better. So from my perspective the Lead looks good. H1nkles (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Qualification" Heading:

I'm considering the benefits of wikilinking all of the athletes in this section. I've read several articles where this happens even though it splashes the page with a lot of red ink. The MOS on this issue is inconclusive. It warns against excessive wikilinking but seems to leave it up to the discretion of the editor. Most of the athletes mentioned in this section have articles (only 8 would require red wikilinks) and so perhaps by wikilinking the rest you will flag editors who have an interest to create articles for some of the other athletes.

Linked, I'm going to create stubs for all of those swimmers. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm thinking of it, I believe the picture of Phelps in the Preview section is him doing the breastroke (I'm no expert on this mind you). Since this is an article about the butterfly you may want to look for one of him doing the "fly". They seem to be ubiquitous around the web and I'm sure one would meet Wikipedia's fair use standards. I did a little checking around Wikipedia but couldn't find one. H1nkles (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the pictures I can find, that one seems to work best. There's one with Phelps, Larsen Jenson, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr., but I think the one we have now works best. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 23:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I wasn't able to find anything either. I'm not very familiar with the image fair use regulations yet so I'm hesitant to pull something from the Web. Keep what you have for now and we'll see what develops down the road. H1nkles (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "pre-race favorites" Heading:

There is a grammatical error in the CBC quote. The last sentence in the quote. Is that an error in the copying of the quote or an actual error in the quote itself? H1nkles (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CBC's error. Added a [sic]. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "venue" and "LZR racer" Headings:

Take a look at the tense in the Venue section. You switch from past to present and back to past tense through out the section.
There is a grammatical error in the line "...due to them helping soothe...", this should be "...due to the fact that they help soothe..." The same can be said for the line "...the indoor advantages of controlling temperature, humdity and lighting..." Perhaps make the indoor advantes into a list with a colon. I'm going to do a little prose massage of the Venue section, take a look at it when I'm done and let me know what you think.
Your source for FINA's endorsement of SPEEDO is "Gizmodo". To enhance credibility you may want to look for FINA's official endorsement, announcement or press conference. H1nkles (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Competition" Heading:

Consider wikilinking the other athletes in the first several heats for the same reasons listed above.

Done --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your quotations of Cavic at the end of the Protest subheading are a little choppy. It appears as though you've pulled a couple of quotes together from different sources. I think just restructuring the sentence to acknowledge that they are different quotes given at different times would do the trick. More to come as I get time. H1nkles (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 21:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better - good job. H1nkles (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Citation #5:

This citation dead ends at a page not found message. I think you use it on several occasions throughout the article. H1nkles (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed this. The url was incorrect. Basement12 (T.C) 20:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Records and tables:

I'm not as versed on the standardization process that the Olympics Community on Wikipedia is undertaking so I would check with Basement12 or Andrwsc regarding that. There is a significant discussion going on as to how to make all the tables and records standard across all Olympic-related articles. I do note that you list Olympic and Continental Records in the tables but not National Records, though in the article you outline all the national records that were set. If it is consistent with form you may want to put those NR's in as well. I will do a final read-through of the article and further check sources and give a last review. H1nkles (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The records tables were initially added to show the Olympic (OR) and World (WR) records prior to the games. The problem we had was a lot of good faith edits were being made to the tables when new ORs or WRs were set so a discussion took place on a new records section. I think NRs need to be left out of these tables as the inital table doesn't list any prior NRs (it could be that 50/60 nations took part).

As far as the "notes" colums go discussions decided that WRs and ORs are in a class above NRs, hence they use linking templates in the notes column, but NRs should be listed here, if we have the correct sources ror them. I'll have a look into that myself. Basement12 (T.C) 15:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the current reference for NR's - this reference is a list of current records - i.e. it will change. Referencing of NR's should be e.g. a news article or governing body press release explicitly saying a national record was broken in this swim.

Also thinking that 'CR' is confusing - would prefer to see 'ER' 'AF' 'AS' 'AM' 'OC' etc. as was used on the Beijing official results site. CR could be confused with a Commonwealth/Course/Championship record. Additionally i thought it was decided at WP:OLY not to link the continental records? Yboy83 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the abbreviations. The discussion at WP:OLY decided not to bold or use a template for CRs, linking them still makes sense as it avoids having to have a key for them all. I see what you mean regarding the national records, this source is used throughout the article though so rather than removing it straight off i'll look for another than can replace all of its uses. Basement12 (T.C) 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any single source (that wil be stable) listing all the national records set. This means that either each record will need individually sourcing or they all need to be removed. However this will also greatly effect the main body of text so I will start a discussion below to discuss what to do. Basement12 (T.C) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding overall impression of the article:

First I refer you to the above discussion regarding listing of records and how best to format the records tables. I think you've done a good job from what I can see. As you can tell there is still debate as to the best format but I know that the overarching goal is consistency among all Olympics articles. I don't think this won't affect the article's standing in the GAR though.
Second, my overall impression is that the article is well written, good prose, good grammatical structure. Your cites are credible. Good use of pictures. I'm not an expert on MoS so I'll leave that to others.
Finally, you might want to include a link to the YouTube video of Phelps' lunge to the wall, perhaps as a cite at the point when you discuss the results. I think this video and/or photo (when it can be freely used), will become an iconic image of these Beijing Olympics, and since this article is about that event, eventually it should make its way into the article. Other than that, my review is done, good job and I sincerely hope it passes GAR, you've done a lot of work on this article and you should be proud. H1nkles (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. As far as the external links, I have added a Sports Illustrated article displaying photos of Phelps and Cavic touching the line. I couldn't find a video of the full race (I'll keep looking), but I did link to a summary of the race by the AP. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 22:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aUwAOW3fvs Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 01:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to the video in the external links section, but I'm going to keep an eye on it because it might violate copyright and some networks (espically NBC) are very strict when it comes to using clips that they filmed. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 01:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]