Jump to content

Talk:Tuvalu at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTuvalu at the 2016 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.
Good topic starTuvalu at the 2016 Summer Olympics is part of the Tuvalu at the Olympics series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 9, 2017Good article nomineeListed
April 9, 2018Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tuvalu at the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.

Should be Tuvalu has: Tuvalu have ever sent,

Capitalize Ministry of Education.

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Combine the Beijing and China wikilinks into a single wikilink for Beijing, China, per WP:OVERLINK or whatever it is, same with Rio.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.

Keep a common date format for the citations.

Make sure you have an access date, and when you get the access date verify the material the source is supporting.

In citations like this one, the name of the website is not needed in the title: "iaaf.org – Top Lists

Include the author names for articles like the Washington Post article.


Combine refs 6 and 7.

A few of the citations are redirects. Fix those with what they are supposed to be.

The top lists citation redirects to a list of 60 m participants still.
2b. 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).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Try using the word 'only' less in the caption, it is used three times as of now.

7. Overall assessment.

@DatGuy: Just those last couple things and we will be good to go. Kees08 (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]