Talk:Water polo at the 1900 Summer Olympics/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I especially liked the explanation/s of who was actually on the teams. VERY well-researched and lays out all the sourced information so the reader can follow the various strands of the story. Shearonink (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
The lead section is succinct and lays out all the claims for notability and all the important facts. Shearonink (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Nicely-done. The most trouble I have ever had sourcing information in an article on Wikipedia was for a sports article with events and competitors dating back to the 1800s, so yeah...great job. Shearonink (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
All the references check out. Shearonink (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:
Factual and to the point. Shearonink (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool, no violations found. Shearonink (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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:
No edit wars...yay! Shearonink (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
The permissions for File:Au front.jpg/"Fernand Feyaerts, pictured in 1916, was a member of the Brussels Swimming and Water Polo Club" seem incorrect. The uploader states it is his own work but the photo looks like it could be (from the resolution) a photo published in another medium. I think that the photo is from 1916 and, therefore, would be in the public domain if it was published then but copyrights are not my strong suit so... permissions etc need to be looked in to. Shearonink (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being the Feyaerts image has been removed from the article. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
As soon as the image issue is cleared-up I will be able to finish this GA Review. Shearonink (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats to User:Canadian Paul et al. Shearonink (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions during the competition

Just a thought - Are there any reports of what the weather was like during the competition or how big the crowds were or what the river was like? I would think that the Seine's river-currents would have been exhausting to swim in, much less have to "play" multiple games of water-polo in that river. I think that adding some of the conditions (was it polluted? was the water cold? what was the ambient air temp like?) would add some interest. And yes, I understand how difficult it can be to source information about sports competitions from over 100 years ago - I've worked on a cycling article that had competitors from the 1800s in it. If this isn't possible then I understand, but I think it is intriguing...like how difficult it is to swim across the English Channel (like some of the water-polo athletes) because of the challenging conditions. Shearonink (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I do have a few contacts that might have access to some better sources... at the very least they may be able to know whether or not that information might be available in reliable sources... so I'll take a look and ask around and see what I can come up with. I'll also look into the image issue noted above. Canadian Paul 19:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Canadian Paul: Glad to do it, didn't realize the subject would be so fascinating. The only real on-hold/GA issue at this point is the image. Anything else can be done as you wish towards improving the article perhaps in going for an FA at some point or just if you want to add additional human interest, but the water/weather conditions I mentioned above are not part of the GA requirement, it's just something that struck me as I was going through the article. I can't even imagine what it must have been like to play water-polo in open current conditions and in outside weather... _Shearonink (talk)

@Shearonink: Still waiting to hear back on the additions, but in terms of the picture, I looked at it and I am a little unclear myself. I left a message for the user who added it to the subject's article, whose user page suggests that they are much more familiar with the relevant copyright information than me, so hopefully we can get some confirmation one way or another. In the meantime, I have removed the image from the article pending more information. Canadian Paul 17:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might come to that. The editor who uploaded this picture and others to Commons did it all in a spurt of about 5 edits on one day I think... My personal theory is that the photo is actually a family photo or possibly from an old book. I think a case for fair use could be made in that 1)The photo is old enough to be in the public domain and 2)The person is dead and WP needs the photo to illustrate this article. Will finish up my Review forthwith. Shearonink (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got a speedy reply and it looks like the picture is good to go for free use, so I'll restore it to the article. Thanks again for the review! Canadian Paul 01:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that is so much of an alright! Thanks for checking into that & the update, I thought the image was very affecting, showing Feyaerts in uniform during WWI. Shearonink (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.