Talk:42nd Chess Olympiad/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Good quality prose, follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References check out, sources appear reliable. Assume GF for off line sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   NPOV

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Correctly licensed and tagged.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article's attention to detail is impressive. I couldn't find any issues relating to its prose or sources. It is well written and comprehensive so it meets the GA criteria. JAGUAR  14:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Oppose for now - the board prize medals are missing! First place on each board is given in the article, but in fact medals were awarded for 1st, 2nd and 3rd on each board.[1] It's also not referenced how those medals are awarded. This is one of the most important awards for the event, and quite a startling omission. Adpete (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean, obviously I can fix that myself, and I probably will. But I wanted to highlight how a GA review can miss the obvious. Adpete (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Adpete: Please pay attention that this is the main article about the event with summary of the results. The information you're referring to can be found in the articles on the open and women's event, respectively. I really don't think there is that much necessity on including a greater level of detail in the main article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)