Talk:Bermuda at the 2010 Winter Olympics

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bermuda at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310015916/http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-athletes/index_cf-PU.html?cat6=&cat1=43018 to http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-athletes/index_cf-PU.html?cat6=&cat1=43018

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bermuda at the 2010 Winter Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: M00036 (talk · contribs) 17:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

On hold "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination but is on hold to allow time to meet the criteria. This is how the article, as of May 5, 2018, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail - It is generally well written but it is not particularly concise and has repetitions such as "and has appeared at every Winter Olympics since" when the Winter and Summer Olympics could be combined for this comment.

2. Verifiable?: Pass - Well referenced and clear research.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass - Very thorough although be careful not to make parts irrelevant to the specific article (particularly in the background section). This article will struggle to be become a good article due to the limited opportunities to fulfil breadth in coverage while remaining pertinent to the article title.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass - Clearly neutral

5. Stable?: Pass - Clearly stable

6. Images?: Pass - Yes although additional media relating to the event in question would be more pertinent to the article.

On Hold - Although it is close to meeting the criteria, there are issues with what content has been included and how. These articles tend to be difficult to become a good article, and an excellent effort has been made. To make this a "good article", I would advise rewording the background section, and try and better relate this to the page title. You might also want to consider looking for other media to better secure a pass in section 6.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— M00036 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• M00036 I don't think this is grounds for an auto-fail, I can fix any issues laid out in literally minutes, if you just lay them out. Courcelles (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
• M00036, I've rewritten the section you objected to. As to images, we're lucky to have any at all. Most relevant images would have had to been taken contemporaneously with the Olympics, or by someone who managed to meet and photograph the single competitor. Courcelles (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • M00036, please also note the broader commentary I placed on your talk page. Courcelles (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Going to jump in here and agree it is not grounds for a quick-fail, would you mind re-opening the nomination and giving seven days for changes? Kees08 (Talk) 19:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was looking at the transcluded version on the talk page, which still had a fail. Leaving here for posterity. Ignore me :).Kees08 (Talk) 19:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Following minor changes to the "Background" section in particular in the article, I have reassessed this page to fulfil the GA criteria. M00036 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)