Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nodar Kumaritashvili/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2018 [1].

---

Nodar Kumaritashvili

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This was nominated a few months ago, but failed mainly due to prose issues. Since then it has gone through a peer review and extensive copy-editing by several experienced editors, so I hope that all those issues have been resolved. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• The 'wall' image caption could use editing for flow
• File:Jacques_Rogge_at_news_conference_on_death_of_Nodar_Kumaritashvili_2010-02-12.jpg: source attributes this image to AP, not VOA (see watermark). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I cleaned up the captions for both, and as the Rogge image is from the AP, and not that important, I've removed it. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Care to take another look at this?`. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Licensing is fine, still not a fan of the caption. One simple solution would be to remove "which" and make it a complete sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed that. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

• A couple of general points:

• For newspapers such as the New York Times or the Denver Post, where thre location is included in the title, there's no need to show the location, it simply adds unnecessary clutter to the ref. See 1, 3, 7 and several others.

Done

• If no author information is provided, then leave the field blank. In instances such as 22, 23 and others you've entered the publishing organisation – BBC, CNN etc – as author. These need to be deleted.

Done

• Ref 4: The author is not "Xinhua". Either leave blank or expand to "Xinhua News Agency"

Added the author name (it is located at the bottom of the page)

• Ref 8: telegraph.co.uk is not the publisher of this source, it's merely the host for the pdf. The report's publisher is The International Luge Federation

Changed

• Ref 13: You give the publisher as "ESPN", but elsewhere you state it as "ESPN.com". You need to be consistent – the former is preferable

Changed

• Ref 15: Author field should be either blank, or "Telegraph staff", not "The Telegraph" – a paper cannot write itself. The correct name of the newspaper is The Daily Telegraph not The Telegraph – see also 20 and 25. You give the correct name in 30.

I fixed 20 and 25. But I will note that for 15 it specifically states in the article the author is "By Telegraph staff." Shouldn't that be left in?

Yes, "Telegraph staff" is fine – not "The Telegraph" as before. You still need to change the paper's name to The Daily Telegraph. Brianboulton (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Fixed

Please give me a ping when you've dealt with these. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Addressed everything here, except the question regarding note 15. Also want to note that in the previous FAC, the sources were all approved as they were here, so I'm just wondering if there has been changes since then I wasn't aware? Want to make sure I have things ready for future nominations. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

All is well now, apart from the small adjustment required to 15, as noted above. The points I've raised here are minor formatting issues which I could have raised at the earlier review, but I was more concerned then with link errors etc. There being no such errors this time, I was able to focus more on these minor matters. No further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Awesome thanks for clarifying. Was just a little uncertain there. Everything is now in order I hope. Kaiser matias (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I had to add a new reference (the Hubbard report), but as it appears to be a self-published article, I'm curious of your opinion on the citation format. Is what I have written adequate you think? Kaiser matias (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be published, or at least accepted, by arXiv.com, which is owned and operated by Cornell University, so I'm sure it's reliable. Just add arXiv.com to the citation, as publisher. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Great thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Question for Coordinators Since there is little action happening regarding the article, is it out of line if I invite the users from the previous nomination to take a look again? I just don't want to have the article fail due to inactivity (even if it's only been a few weeks so far), but at the same time don't want to inadvertently break any rules. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose Sarastro1, because I forgot to tag you both when I wrote this. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

As long as it's a general invitation to all participants (supportive, opposing, or neutral) from the previous review, that's fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That's kind of what I had in mind, just a simple note that it's here and nothing more. Thanks for the clarification, I'll send them out then. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments – I supported this at the first FAC, but have a few further comments this time:

• Olympic luge track: The abbreviation VANOC doesn't have its full version in the text, unless I'm missing it somewhere.
• Also, the FIL abbreviation is used before the full version, when the full version should logically come first. It looks like some content was added that caused this issue.
• The last paragraph of this section is stubby at one sentence. Is it possible to merge it someplace else? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Addressed all these. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Support – My comments have all been adequately responded to, and the article looks to have improved from the condition it was in during its first FAC. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "He became the fourth athlete to die during Winter Olympics preparations, and the seventh athlete to die in either a Summer or Winter Olympic Games." - the fourth to die during the 2010 olympics preparations? Think this could be a little more clear; I see now after reading that it is more clearly expressed later on with "Kumaritashvili became the fourth athlete to die during preparations for a Winter Olympics" - I'd suggest reusing that model for the lead as well

Done

• "Kumaritashvili himself began competing in the 2008–09 Luge World Cup. Kumaritashvili had also been a student at the Georgian Technical University, where he earned an economics degree in 2009." - something about starting two consecutive sentences with his last name bothers me; a slight tweak would be better IMO

Changed to "he"

• "Kumaritashvili's family has had a long association with luge" - Is the "had" necessary? His family still has this association, no?

I switched it and dropped the "has" for two reasons: one, Kumaritashvili isn't around anymore, and I don't know if the family is still associated, so feel it's more accurate to say they did

• "training for the sport in East Germany." - training "for the sport" reads awkwardly

Tried to reword it, but not sure if that's any better.

• "by at least 10 km/h" - conversion into miles per hour would be nice

Added

• "after British luger Kazimierz Kay-Skrzypeski and Australian skier Ross Milne (both 1964 Innsbruck), and Swiss speed skier Nicolas Bochatay (1992 Albertville) – and the seventh athlete to die in either a Summer or Winter Olympic Games.[20]" - too many dashes and parentheticals; split into another sentence

Modified

• "In Bakuriani, the street where Kumaritashvili's childhood home is located" - seems like this could be phrased more concisely

Trying to think of something, but coming up blank here. Any suggestions?

What about "the street of Kumaritashvili's childhood home"? ceranthor 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Done

• "International Luge Federation report" - in this section, I suppose it's just a preference, but I would add a citation each time you use a quote from the report

Have those done.

• Same with quotes from the coroner's report and the last report.

Working on these. Finished all these now.

Otherwise, prose looks very good here. Tragic story - hope his family will eventually find peace. ceranthor 19:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Addressed everything but the last few quotes. Have to look through the report myself as I can't automatically search for terms. But should be done shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Kaiser matias (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Kaiser matias replied to the one. Otherwise, I think this is fine prose-wise and comprehensive. Support. ceranthor 17:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Great changed that last thing. Thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Given that prose was a concern at the last FAC, I'd like at least one more pair of eyes on this. A quick look makes me think we could smooth the prose a little more. I wonder if one, two or all of Mike Christie, Corinne or John are available to take a look? Sarastro (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• The new curve configurations were expected to provide the main challenge, not the speed alone: suggest " The new curve configurations, rather than the speed, were expected to provide the main challenge".
• IBG calculated the speeds and G forces along each curve of the track... The design included predictions of speeds and G forces an athlete would experience in each curve: repetitive; aren't these saying the same thing?
• The iterative design process produced: slightly stilted phrasing. I don't think it's worth mentioning that the design process was iterative, but if you want to keep it, I'd move it to the first sentence, where you can attach it to the mention of the design.

Just looking at the prose, that's all I can see that needs fixing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Addressed your points here, thanks for going over it. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Support. The points I raised have been fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 11:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.