Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1952 Summer Olympics medal table/archive1

{{la|1952 Summer Olympics medal table}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured list tools|1=1952 Summer Olympics medal table}}

:Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm excited to say this is Olympic medal table #9 for me (Summer Games nom #6). It's a relatively short nom, but it's interesting in that 12 countries participated for the first name and it was the first time the Chinese NOC competed as the People's Republic of China. As always, I will do my best to respond to all comments as quickly as possible, and I appreciate any and all feedback that is given. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• I would be tempted to join the final one-sentence paragraph of the lead to the one before
• That's it, I think - great work as ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• :I felt mixed about it, but I said screw it and went ahead and did it. In a way I liked them split because one was about the countries who had success and the following was about the people who had success. But a single sentence shouldn't necessarily be its own paragraph. Sorry for the delay in replying, accidently cleared my watchlist I think. Thanks for the review @ChrisTheDude! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• File:Nina Ponomaryova 1960.jpg - Public Domain
• File:Asnoldo Devonish 1952 Helsinki.png - Public Domain, source link needs to be fixed.
• Both images have alt text, suitable captions, and are relevant to the article.
• Here are my comments! Arconning (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
• :What if the source link cannot be fixed because it's gone offline and the archives don't seem to have properly grabbed the picture @Arconning? Pinging uploader @Kingsif. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
• ::Using the archive link should still be acceptable, there’s enough documentation to say the image was there. As I understand it, the only issue as it is for the original link being dead would be WP:V, so effective proof that the link existed is good. Otherwise, you’re looking for an alternative source altogether. Kingsif (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Hey man im josh, considering archive links have enough documentation that say the image was there... I'll support based on image review. Arconning (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewed special:diff/1274315826

Reliability – one question

• Britannica articles are used appropriately (Netherlands Antilles in particular seems to be written by SMEs)
• Wondering if there's a better source than one via the China Internet Information Center, a state-controlled media outlet
• Other source reliability looks fine

Formatting consistency – clear

• I believe it's all good here, kudos

Other comments – couple comments

• Could do with page numbers for the Olympic factsheets?
• Ref 2: include author
• Ref 8: include authors
• Ref 14: incorrect date
• Ref 17: drop "Factsheet" like you do in other factsheet references
• Ref 18: if kept, should probably mention it's via China Internet Information Center
• Ref 19: link Pacific Affairs; specify "Autumn 1985"; would like a more precise page number, 17 pages is a substantial range
• Ref 27: byline date says a different date; link William Grimes (journalist)

Spotchecks – 25% of sources (round up to 10),

• Ref 1: pass
• Ref 5: pass
• Ref 9: pass
• Ref 10: pass
• Ref 17: "including the Olympic debut of women's gymnastics events", unless I'm missing something, women's artistic gymnastics debuted at the 1928 Summer Olympics
• Ref 23: pass
• Ref 26: pass
• Ref 31: pass
• Ref 34: pass
• Ref 35: pass

Thoughts

• Just a few comments above, nothing major. Nice work Josh. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:Hey @UpTheOctave!, I've addressed all of your points, and the only ones I think I need to reply directly to are the following:

:* {{tq|Ref 17: "including the Olympic debut of women's gymnastics events", unless I'm missing something, women's artistic gymnastics debuted at the 1928 Summer Olympics}} – After rereading and looking into it, the it was women's individual events that were introduced at the 1952 games, whereas previously it was only the all-around event for women. A breakdown of events by year can be viewed Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics#Women's events. What's now ref 16 also reflects this, by saying {{tq|In gymnastics, individual events for women were introduced.}} – I clearly misunderstood this mention.

:* {{tq|Wondering if there's a better source than one via the China Internet Information Center, a state-controlled media outlet}} – I struggled, a lot, with the situation and wording where I used this source. It was surprisingly neutral for the bit that I used it for, and substantiated by other sources, but it would have required 3-4 sources for the information I used in one source by using this one.

:Thanks so much for the quality source review! I always enjoy when you give source reviews at WP:FLC and I hope that you continue to do so :) Please let me know if I've missed anything or if you've seen anything more. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::I think I'm happy to sign off on this given your explanations: pass for source review. Nice work Josh. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I thought I'd take a peek over at the world of featured lists, but after carefully reading this list several times, I feel almost silly creating a section here with so little feedback to give. I keep typing things and deleting them once I figure them out! For example, a non-suggestion: I sometimes forgot what an NOC was, but this was clearly explained and often well-reinforced by context, and I particularly appreciate the tooltip in the table. Nonetheless, two notes:

• The paragraph in the lead about China is leaving me uncertain as to whether I've correctly understood the information at hand. It was 1952 which first allowed both PRC and ROC to compete, thus being the first PRC olympics? Was 1952 also the first year that ROC represented non-mainland-China athletes? I think putting in one more date -- like 1949 as the conclusion of the Chinese Civil War -- might help 'ground' this for those (like me) with too little background knowledge. And/or, perhaps move the parenthetical about the ROC into its own sentence, placed in the chronological flow as something which occurred before the IOC's decision?
• It's redundant to say "In addition" and "also" for the line about pesäpallo. I also wonder if this sentence would flow better at the end of paragraph 2, but it works where it is too.

Otherwise, I have no changes to suggest. I hope these comments are helpful. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:Never feel bad about saying you reviewed something and didn't find much to comment on @LEvalyn. It still helps the promoters to know that people made the effort.

:Regarding the China issue, yes, it was the first time that mainland China competed as the People's Republic of China. I've made a change that I hope clears things up.

:I've also removed the word "also" from the sentence you mentioned and moved it, but I chose to combine the first two sentences because of this change. Thank you very much for taking a look over the list and providing feedback! Outside perspectives, especially from those are not regular reviewers, are very valuable for those of us who get tunnel visioned on a series. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the kind words, and speedy edits! The new version of the China paragraph is definitely an improvement, but I feel that there's still a logical gap in spelling out that PRC = mainland and ROC = Taiwan. Something like, "claimed to be the proper representative party of China, retaining the ROC designation" ? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Progress is progress, I added some verbiage so it needs read "the IOC granted the ROC designation to the group in Taiwan and allowed both the PRC and ROC..."

:::I did struggle with the wording of this paragraph putting it together, so I definitely understand the feedback and appreciate it. Whatever makes things clear while being as concise as appropriate. Lemme know what you think @LEvalyn. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I think this version fully clarifies it! And much better than what I’d been thinking. Thanks, and I’m happy to support. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 22:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

{{FLCClosed|promoted}}

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