Talk:Djibouti at the Olympics/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Kees08 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply


Starting later.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 01:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Criteria

edit
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

edit
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (MoS) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Minor issues fixed.   Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (c) (original research) All referenced. No assumptions.   Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) 9.1%   Pass
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The reviewer has no notes here.   Pass
    (b) (focused) All events covered.   Pass
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    Each competition covered sufficiently/fairly balanced   Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    No edit wars so far   Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) NOC logo is good   Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Would prefer the NOC logo in the NOC section   Pass

Result

edit
Result Notes
  Pass The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

edit
  • Last two sentences of the 1992 section need citations.
  • Djibouti City should be linked in the NOC section.
  • Ref 8 needs the language the website is in.

@CycloneIsaac: Issues addressed, let me know if you want additional work performed. Kees08 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Additional notes

edit
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.