Talk:2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 21:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

GA De-listing
After reviewing the article in accordance to the Good Article Criteria, I unfortunately have to de-list the article at this time for concerns listed below. I encourage the editors to work to address the below concerns and consider resubmitting for Good Article status again. 1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs Improvement 3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy -Needs Improvement 5. It is stable - Pass 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass There is a lost of positive and merit to this article. I want to thank the editors for their hard work and dedication that got the article up to this point. Again, I strongly want to encourage the editors to strive to improve this article so that not would it meet the Good Article Criteria but that it would be in considerable shape for a Feature Article nomination. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Agne 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead is quite short and doesn't pass the WP:MOS standard for Lead paragraphs that can be found in WP:LEAD. The lead section should give a more comprehensive overview of what exactly the scandal was, who was involved and a summarization of what the outcome was. An important distinction between an encyclopedic article and a news or magazine article is that we don't need to "build anything up" for the reader-no suspense or plot development. Rather we lay everything out in the beginning and then go into more detail and development below. With a good lead, a reader should know the WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE and WHY of the article below they even get to the TOC.
 * There are some colloquiums in the article that are not quite appropriate for an encyclopedia article. An example would be the last line in the paragraph "Welch and Johnson decided to try harder the next round. Prior to the IOC vote for 1998, they had given out Stetson hats to delegates. For 2002 they decided to give out more than hats."' This reads more like a magazine expose then an encyclopedia entry.
 * The article is lacking in in-line citations to allow the any reader (or the reviewer) to be able to verify important details. For brevity, I would only tag a few items in the articles that particular standout with a need for citations. However, I encourage the editors to do a through vetting of the article for cites and references.
 * The entire section of The winning bid needs through source attribution and the removal of vague weasel words. "Some members", "It was rumored", etc.
 * The most glaring omission is details on the IOC individuals that were involved such as the ones mentioned in the line "As a result of the investigation ten members of the IOC were expelled and another ten were sanctioned."'
 * Another glaring omission is the response (or even mention of) the other bid cities to the scandal.
 * The Aftermath section is quite thin compared to the extensive investigations, court proceedings and media attention the scandal got. There is more areas of focus then just Mitt Romney's participation. There should be mention of some of the protests that came out of the scandal.
 * There are quite a few POV points in the article. I've listed a few here for example this will not be comprehensive. Like with the citations, I encourage the editors to do a thorough vetting of the article for a NPOV tone.
 * In the section Early bid attempts there is overly positive POV in the first paragraph, particularly the line "Dry powdery snow and several ski resorts in the vicinity make it an ideal location for winter sports activities." This is an opinion and while it is acceptable to note this opinion in the article as one of the "selling points" that SLC was using in its bid, the way the article is currently written presents this as the opinion of the article instead of the particular source or document containing the opinion. (which should be cited)
 * These few lines seem almost apologetic and deflecting the scandal for the benefit of Salt Lake City in the section Scandal "Although Salt Lake was not the first city to use creative bid tactics, it was the first to use them to such an extent, as well as the first to get caught. There were also allegations that Atlanta, Nagano, and Sydney had used similar tactics." It downgrades the accusations as being "creative bid tactics" and seemingly deflect the blame to other cities. Additionally, the accusations against the other cities needs to be expanded with more detail accusations and attached to solid and specific sources.
 * Very POVish tone in this line from Aftermath "The Games were so successful that they were one of the few in recent history to turn a profit, thanks in part to heavy marketing and a built-in American audience."
 * The article is sufficiently stable
 * There is room for improvement (images of some of the investigation documents, protest signs, or even images from the Olympic themselves) the article has enough images to pass this criteria.

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://edition.cnn.com/US/9902/11/olympics.01/index.html?eref=sitesearch
 * In 2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal on 2011-05-25 07:25:11, 404 Not Found
 * In 2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal on 2011-06-10 13:29:38, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://2002.ksl.com/news-7710i.php?p=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050304145117/http://www.ldc.upenn.edu:80/Projects/TDT3/topic.research/topic3038.html to http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Projects/TDT3/topic.research/topic3038.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.deseretnews.com/oly/view/0%2C3949%2C35000108%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915170648/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060109/ai_n15989280 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060109/ai_n15989280
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20021014113205/http%3A//2002.ksl.com%3A80/news-7710i.php?p=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20050304145117/http%3A//www.ldc.upenn.edu%3A80/Projects/TDT3/topic.research/topic3038.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Article needs edits
This is a topic that will likely be receiving a lot of attention to come. It contains many uncited claims and less-than-scholarly language worth modifying. Perhaps someone with more experience might undertake the task.

Also worth mentioning, The 1998 Nagano Olympics Scandal is referenced but not linked, lacking a dedicated page. If referenced in the 1998 Nagano Olympics page, that should be a link. HumphreyBROgart (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)