Talk:Pan American Games sports/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Unionhawk (talk · contribs) 18:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello, I'm Unionhawk, and I will be reviewing the article in question, Pan American Games sports. I assume you all know how the GA nomination process works, so, let's get started.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 18:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Criteria

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(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.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(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.

Well-written

• (a) Okay - I see some minor copyediting issues, but nothing I can't fix myself under WP:IAR.
• (b) Good - lead covers what it needs to cover, layout is good, etc.

Factually accurate and verifiable

• (a) Good - references are correct per MOS:LAYOUT
• (b) Good - inline citations to reliable sources are used where needed
• (c) Good - there is no original research

Broad in its coverage

• (a) Not good - I'm reading the Pan American Games article, and they mention there that there were winter events at the Pan American Games. This article includes other discontinued events, but makes no mention of winter events. Now Good.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment it has been fixed. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• (b) Good - article goes into detail where it needs to go into detail

Neutral

• Good - article meets neutrality requirements.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Stable

• Good - Article doesn't change very much from day to day, no edit wars.

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• (a) Good - All images are properly tagged for copyright status.
• (b) Good - All images are relevant, and have an appropriate caption

Conclusion

Having reviewed the article and compared it to the Good Article criteria, it is my conclusion that the article should be promoted to Good Article status.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)