Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Australia at the Winter Olympics/Archive1

Australia at the Winter Olympics

Self-nomination. The history of Australia at the Winter Olympics from a 1-man team in 1936 to a golden games in 2002. It has received a brief peer review. It could serve as an article to feature some day during the 2006 Winter Olympics. Andjam 10:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's too short, I'm afraid. The lead section is too brief, and almost every section is too short for an FA. It really does need more detail across the board. Ambi 10:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think adding material from the sub-pages of "Australia at the (year) Winter Olympics" will make it long enough, or do you think I'll have to add some more research? Thanks, Andjam 10:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the information seems to be there, but you might have to do some more on top of that. Incidentally, it'd be nice if the individual Olympics pages were linked in the article (perhaps a template?) - I'd completely forgotten they existed until you mentioned that. Ambi 11:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I developed a template after seeing someone do one for Australia at the Summer Olympics, but didn't really think of using it on the main page. Do you think it should be placed at the very bottom, or above some of the "boring stuff"? Andjam 11:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very bottom, I'd say - I think it'd make a good footer. Ambi 13:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly improved, but it's still not quite comprehensive. The individual sport sections are very summary - I suspect they could still be expanded significantly, as could the paralympics section. It just needs more research, I'm afraid. Niggly minor little complaint - there's a couple of instances of people being referred to by their first names, which is a Bad Thing. Ambi 06:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the article yet but I did look at its length. White's tree frog was recently featured on the main page, and it's about as long as this article. --CDN99 15:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that'd have more pretty pictures, though. :P Andjam 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree that it is too short. One thing that is missing is a simple summary of the Australian medal winners: at the moment, they are scattered through the text (with 4 medals, it should not be too hard to present). Extending the table Australia at the Winter Olympics beyond 1992 would also be nice. My last suggestion is more anecdotical, but I think that the history of the first Australian Gold medal (Steven Bradbury in speed skating) deserves to be in this article. Schutz 11:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As in a fuller description of his races that night from heats to finals? Andjam 11:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not "full description", but at least a mention that his win was a bit "accidental" (sorry, I don't want to devaluate Steven Bradbury's medal, but I cannot think of a better word for it). Schutz 12:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the "accidental" nature of his win in the "history" section, though not in the "overview by sport" section. Though if you didn't notice it, that could indicate a problem with the article. Andjam 12:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just noticed that (my edit was in conflict with yours). The history section could probably go first, as a general overview. I would still put a bit more information about Bradbury (the fact that he got lucky so many times in a row, 3 if I remember well), and maybe just mention it briefly in the "Speed skating" section. Schutz 12:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you hate it? You're going along fine, and then suddenly you've collided with another wikipedian and are sliding towards the edge of wikipedia at 50km/h. Putting the history section first sounds good. I'm happy at putting more detail in about what happened, so long as I don't repeat myself too much. Andjam 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, with only 4 medals, and a lead section that is too short, I think it would make sense to detail the medals in the introduction. Schutz 12:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Andjam 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the article yet but I did look at its length. White's tree frog was recently featured on the main page, and it's about as long as this article. --CDN99 15:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the defense, though I'm happy to try to work on these suggestions. At school I sometimes had a tendency to be a bit terse with my essays. Andjam 09:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on dealing with the objections. I'd like to invite people to have another look at the article, and point out what they'd like more info on if anything. Andjam 13:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]