Talk:Belize at the 2008 Summer Olympics/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warming up for the GA Review Drive, so let's take a look at this article:

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comments:

In the "background" section, "Up to and including Beijing, the largest Belizean delegations held over ten people, and competed between 1984 and 1992. Since and before then, under ten athletes have represented Belize at any one time" is not clear at all. I understand what you're trying to say by reading the source, but I don't think what you're trying to say gets across in this section. A slight improvement might be "Belize has always been represented by fewer than ten individuals, except for a period between 1984 and 1992, when it was represented by up to eleven athletes." Or better yet, I think that there's some superfluous information here and it might be better to say something along the lines of "Belize has never had an Olympic delegation consisting of more than 11 individuals". I'm not sure what would work best here, but what's there is borderline incomprehensible and kills the flow, so it needs to change.

I think I was trying to show that, in a nutshell, the delegation increased in size and then decreased again. I think your first suggestion may solve the problem; I'll try to integrate it into the article. --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked the passage slightly. What do you think? --Starstriker7^(Talk) 05:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, everything looks good. I made a few changes, but nothing that I thought was too controversial, mostly some flow and MOS issues. To allow for this change to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 16:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to meet the criteria at this point, so I will be passing the article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 16:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]