Talk:Aruba at the 2008 Summer Olympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hello!  Done Begin as of now and will end in a few minutes! ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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.:

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):

7. Overall: Great article; I disagree with the ip-address above; size is quite immaterial. I will pass it to GA. Regards!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

A great lead, which summarize the content below.

Opening and closing ceremonies

• "Opening Ceremony" should not be capitalized

Done. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Judo

• "Judoka" should be linked

Done. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Swimming

Everything correct

References

• Ref 1: What does '''[sic]''' means in the title parameter? The work is "multimedia.olympic.org" and the publisher the IOC.

Explanation "sic" is used because in the work, the people misspelled Beijing as "Bejing." Sic means "as is." --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Work and publisher issue addressed. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 2: Why is the language "French and English"? I only see English. The work is "multimedia.olympic.org" and the publisher the IOC.

Explanation It actually is in English and French. There are rows in both languages. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Done Work and publisher issue addressed. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 3 seems to be fine
• Ref 4 also
• The last ref is very strange and don't think it belongs there. I would create a section called "External links" and put it there.

Done + Comment I think that it was used to source the article previously, when it was just a stub. I've removed it because it now seems pretty extraneous. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 01:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If these things are done, I will change to GA-status. Congratulation and Regards!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Too many short paragraphs imo to be a GA. Needs to be brilliant. this is not

Wow, a very great review. You know, that size is not the most relevant thing for articles; quality ahead quantity. There is really nothing to add in the paragraphs, or have you a suggestion? "Needs to be brilliant"; no it should be good not "brilliant". And don't forget the four tildes after your comment.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

For short articles it needs to be brilliant. For longer articles good. Read GA instead of embarrasing your self —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.254.209 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)