Talk:Venezuela at the 1956 Summer Olympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this article. Quite an obscure subject so it'll be interesting. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "event handbook"? May need clarification.

What needs clarifying? It's a handbook for an event, and presumably the context clues help if somehow you don't get that. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know what an 'event' and 'handbook' are, but taken at face value, the phrase The Venezuelan Olympic Committee (VOC) received a total of 130 event handbooks, including 15 each for fencing and shooting seems so trivial that I didn't know if there was some hidden or different meaning. The sentence is also written as if the reader knows that the Olympics gives out event handbooks and the reader knows why and who they give them out to. Overall, the sentence needs removing or the phrasing needs clarification. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Fencing' and 'Shooting' shouldn't be capitalised and should have wikilinks.

Done Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Melbourne, Venezuela's Olympic attaché was a Miss. W. Bond I don't think this is important enough to merit inclusion. It also isn't specific given we don't know their first name.

Generally the attachés are mentioned in these articles. Usually they are significant people in Olympic committees, though Bond here doesn't appear to be, and is only named in official documents in the (fairly sexist) manner here. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The delegation, of 28 men, arrived on 15 November no need for these commas.

There is; it's a condensed way of saying "The delegation consisted of 28 men and arrived on 15 November", and if the text was kept without commas it would introduce a lack of clarity as it suggests that a "delegation of 28 men" arrived on that date but doesn't confirm if that is the whole delegation and on what days other people may have arrived. Grammar is important. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The details on dining halls and eating arrangements are trivial and shouldn't be included.

Is there no argument that the fact the organizing committee grouped "similar eating habits", and which nations Venezuela was therefore grouped with, is interesting? The article's scope is the national presence at the Games, not just results tables. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is in the slightest "interesting". Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

while Solórzano, running in heat 4, was disqualified any details on why he was disqualified?

No. The sources are limited because being an early Olympics for Venezuela, and not winning anything, the media didn't care. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the results box in the track section, it should be 42.0 not 42.

Done 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

How did the individual and team races differ? Were they competed in the same race, or were there two sperate races both held on the same day? Also, you should include a date. The articles (Cycling at the 1956 Summer Olympics – Men's team road race and Cycling at the 1956 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race) give the date as 7 December.

Done Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

would have had strict regulations why not just "had"?

Because no equestrian events happened in Australia, thus preventing strict regulations being put in place for the Olympic horses. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

they could take practice shots before and between sets, up to 18 practice shots to they could take up to 18 practice shots before each set

No, since it means something very different! Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"572/60" "555/60" shouldn't these be out of 600?

No? They scored X with 60 shots, as outlined in the paragraph.

Oh, I can see the confusion. I don't know how to resolve your misunderstanding; that's the jargon of how these scores are recorded: 60 means they got every shot on target. So if it said 500/50, someone would have missed 10 shots completely, but the rest were perfect. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little confusing, but I think I understand now. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

who placed ninth of eleven should be "out of eleven"

No, it's correct. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just suggested different wording as I believe it makes more sense to say 'out of' than just 'of'. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the running deer event, you don't mention what the score is out of. Presumably 600?

It's actually unknown. No official record mentions it, and since 1956 is the only time the event was run in this format, it can't be compared. See how Shooting at the 1956 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 meter running deer, single and double shot and 100 meter running deer don't (can't) mention it, either. Can't include what we don't know. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You capitalise 'Running Deer' and 'Running Target' in the section, but in the section title, it is uncapitalised. This should be fixed for consistency.
For the small bore rifle, it is presumably out of 1200?

Well, the article says for a possible 600 already, so no. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the previous sub section; the total possible score isn't mentioned in the previous sub-section and I am assuming it is out of 1200. This needs clarification

Any more images that can be used would help the article greatly.

Not many exist, and Australia has tight laws. A blurry opening ceremony image wouldn't be sufficiently fair use. Sweden are a bit more lax but I could only confirm two photos. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks of references complete and the sources are consistent with the content.
In general, I'm concerned with the over-reliance on one source. Also, the excessive use of sports-reference isn't ideal as it really only lists results.

The official report is pretty comprehensive, though sports-reference has great score breakdowns that aren't expanded on in it. Kingsif (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll place this article on hold to give me time to think about whether this should be promoted and to let you address the issues. Kidn regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I have replied to your comments. Please let me know when you have replied or edited the article accordingly. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: Thanks! I'm back and will look at responses today Kingsif (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been about a month since the GAR was opened and I don't believe the issues have been sufficiently addressed. I am particularly concerned about the over-reliance on a single, dated source which makes the verifiability of the article questionable, thus failing WP:GACR point 2. No work on the article was completed after 20 March when the nom replied to the discussion stating they would. Therefore, I will fail this article. Please get in contact with me if you have any questions. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]