Talk:Carl Lewis/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 21:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is certainly a decent piece of work in terms of quantity, but I have some concerns about the quality. Most specifically on a first quick read through, the referencing is nowhere near up to scratch. In the first paragraph of the body, the sentences about his parents and sister are unreferenced, and this is a theme which continues later in the article. A few of the unreferenced claims are:

His parents ran a local athletics club that provided a crucial influence on both Carl and his sister, Carol. She was also to become an elite long jumper, finishing 9th at the 1984 Olympics and taking bronze at the 1983 World Championships.
As a junior, he was one of the top long jumpers in New Jersey, and by his senior year he was one of the top long jumpers in the world.
In 1981, Lewis started to emerge as a dominant sprinter and long jumper. – This is also a very short one sentence paragraph, which is frowned upon.
The jump made Lewis the number two long jumper in history, behind only Bob Beamon, and holder of the low-altitude record.
For the first time, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), the governing body of track and field, organized a World Championships, an event which would prove to be one of the biggest sporting events of the year worldwide. The championships boasted a then record number of participating countries for a sporting event (154), more than even the Olympics which had been plagued by politically motivated boycotts in its two previous celebrations and which would suffer another one in 1984. – An entire paragraph uncited.

These are only a small selection, and later in the article there is a claim with a "citation needed" tag too.

The references that are in place need completing or tidying up:

Ref #5 is missing a title.
Ref #7 is missing just about everything.
Refs #12, #15, #17, #35, #50, #79, #82 and #89 don't seem to be working, though some of those are DNS issues, so they maybe temporary.
The date format is inconsistent, Ref #2 uses "15 January 2015", Ref #3 uses "January 30, 2009", Ref #5 uses "13. Jan 1981" and Ref #13 uses "1961-07-01". Pick one format (probably "January 30, 2009") and stick with it.

I'm going to place this nomination on hold for a week in the hope that significant work can be done with the referencing, before continuing with a full review. Harrias ^talk 21:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: thank you for the review. I will make the fixes by 11 June, as required. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done a bunch. More to go. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, ping me here when you reckon you're done. Don't worry too much about the time scale, as long as significant work is being done, I won't fail it without notice. Harrias ^talk 17:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Been through it with a fine-tooth comb: improved references and removed uncited material where necessary. Over to you, please. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkyCanute: Life off-wiki has been pretty hectic over the last week or so, but I've printed a copy of this article out to give myself more opportunity to look at it, and I'm making it my top priority this week. Harrias ^talk 07:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]