Wikipedia:Featured article review/Olympic Games/archive1

Olympic Games

Review commentary

Messages left at Jeronimo and Sports Olympics. Sandy (Talk) 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I am nominating this article for FAR is not by far because I would like it delisted. I am an avid Olympics page editor, and I think that this page may be falling behind, and I would hate to lose it as a FA, as the Summer Olympics page did. I am looking to see what specifically could be changed, both content-wise and aesthetically, because I think that would help the page. I just saw that this page had never been listed as one of "Today's Featured Articles" and I was shocked, and that's what initiated this request. I hope to see some very helpful feedback that editors can look back on for guidance! → JARED ^(t) 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is well detailed, but needs lots more references. The article currently only has five, and only four inline citations which are "notes" (really references). Image:Larisa Latynina.jpg requires a fair use rationale. I only did a quick scan of the article, but at the moment, the above problems I noted are enough to get this article demoted from featured status (failing criteria 1c and 3). You probably could have also taken this to peer review as well and gotten quite a few responses, but I'm pretty sure listing it here is okay. Green451 21:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article's problems are obvious from the lead. Three stubby paragraphs! The article is informative, but has no inline citations and some sections are too short and under-analyzed. I did not read it in full detail, but judging from the lead, I have the impression that the article may well need an overall copy-editing.--Yannismarou 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - nothing happening. Sandy (Talk) 01:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, wait a second, if you read my first comment above, you'd have known well that I just wished to gain some comments on how to fix up this page. I am unfamiliar with WP:FAR, so I had no idea that I had to be editing this page continuously before it was nominated for deletion. It was definitely on one of my things to do in this coming week; I was just waiting for this to close, but I guess it doesn't work that way. Anyway, for this reason, I request another week during which I will fix up the page before it is nominated again; I appologize for now knowing the happenings of this page. → JARED ^(t) 14:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Glad to hear there is an involved, concerned editor - please let us know if you need more detail on items to address, besides the obvious lack of citations and possible fair use on the images. Sometimes moving an article to FARC is the only thing that brings concerned editors out of the woodwork :-) Sandy (Talk) 22:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your understanding! I'll get on that ASAP! → JARED ^(t) 23:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Further remarks while JP continues his rewrting. I think the 4 pars in the lead are stubby. The problem with the stubby paragraphs is bigger in "Doping".--Yannismarou 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are references (1c), LEAD (2a), and stub paragraphs (2). Marskell 07:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has also received some work. Moving down as it's been up a while. Marskell 07:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose.~~ Keep. It is not necessary to remove this page from FA. It does require some work, which is being handled slowly but surely. Give it some time, and if no more work is made to fix it, without a doubt nominate it for removal. → JARED ^(t) 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the reviewers can wait. Are you actually working on the article? How much time do you need?--Yannismarou 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's a matter of time. I think it's a matter of my doing it. And I'm doing it, but I'm only one person with other responsibilities. Here's what I suggest: this FARC should be removed from the page, which would take the pressure off of me for finishing the job. If you notice that the page still isn't up to par in a reasonable amount of time, bring this back here for removal. I just feel that pressure if being put on me personally because I am being sort of hounded to finish the job and I can't operate that way. I would appreciate your understanding! → JARED ^(t) 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just letting you know, the usual window during FARC is two weeks. There's no pressure (yet). Also, the FARC process can be extended if there is progress being made on the article. Gzkn 10:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think the FARC can be removed now, but it can be extended per Gzkn. I think that people here show the adequate patience, when they see a user working on an article.--Yannismarou 08:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, thank you both. → JARED ^(t) 11:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Also, the lingo here is to Keep or Remove the featured status - you entered oppose on FARC (it's already in FARC), but I think you mean Keep - you might want to strike and change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, I should have known that.... → JARED ^(t) 21:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove—1a and 2a. The lead is scrappy, and its prose exemplifies a generally poor standard of writing throughout.

- First sentence: "comprised of"—what a blooper; it's "comprising" or "consisting of", which each carry slightly different meanings.
- "these ancient Games"—used generically, probably small g.
- Paragraphing in the lead is askew: 1896, then cross to next para for 1896.
- "Tremendously"—weasely.
- "World wild"—one word.
- "are constantly gaining more supporters"—Spot the redundant word.
- "the two sports of baseball and softball have been removed from the schedule of the following games"—Remove the first four words, since they're redundant. "Following" is unclear.
- Is the point about London really important enough to include in this small lead? Tony 08:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]