Login
Login

Talk:South Sudan at the 2020 Summer Olympics/GA1

GA Review

{{atopg

| status =

| result = Passed. Z1720 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:South Sudan at the 2020 Summer Olympics/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:South Sudan at the 2020 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|History6042}} 01:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Starting review momentarily. Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
  2. :a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|y}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y}}
  3. ::
  4. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
  5. :a (reference section): {{GAList/check|y}} b (inline citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|y}} d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|y}}
  6. ::
  7. It is broad in its coverage.
  8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
  9. ::
  10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
  12. ::
  13. It is stable.
  14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
  15. ::
  16. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
  17. :a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
  18. ::
  19. Overall:
  20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|?}}
  21. ::

Comments:

  • The date of Moris's heat is in the article, but not Guems. Why this difference?
  • Recommend retrieval date for ref 10.
  • Recommend running [https://iabot.wmcloud.org/index.php IA bot] to archive sources
  • Spot check, no concerns: refs 1, 2, 6, 11, 14
  • What makes "Bleacher Report" (ref 2) reliable? I see that it is inconclusive at WP:RS/P searches, and I cannot find editorial information. I think the Guardian source (ref 1) covers the same information.
  • What makes "World Athletics" (ref 10) a reliable source?
  • Made some phrasing changes to the article: please revert if not helpful.
  • Earwig check revealed no concerns.

Placing on hold until above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:All {{done}}, except I can't find where World Athletics is used and IA bot isn't working for me but you said that's just a suggestion. Its showing up in the reflist but there is no inline citation. @Z1720 History6042😊 (Contact me) 12:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::World Athletics is now ref 9, which is used for the note. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Fixed, @Z1720. I replaced it with New York Times. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass. Congratulations. Please wait a few moments for everything to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}