Talk:2009 Mediterranean Games/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Armoreno10 (talk · contribs) 18:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am starting a review of this article. -- arm oren o10 18:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC) I completed my review but would like a second opinion since I am new to reviewing GANs. Thanks for your help in advance! -- arm oren o10  16:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this review has sat for a while I will give a second opinion in the hopes of moving this review to conclusion. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria    A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion

 * 1) References in introduction section. References to the statements in intro are placed in the body of the article. However, they are not in the introduction. Should the references be present in the intro? I believe so but would like a second opinion.
 * IMO, there is no need for citations in lead because this section is intended to be a summary of article and thus the content should be cited within the body. Actually, "[citations are] often discouraged in the lead section".  undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   04:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Saw that Greek government-debt crisis is in the "See also" section. I am not certain of the relevance to this article and would like to remove.
 * Done undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   04:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The final paragraph in the "Closer Ceremony" section discusses the stripping of Greece's ability to host the 2013 Mediterranean games. This occured in 2011, 2 years after the 2009 Mediterrean Games. I believe that this is irrelevant. Any second opinions?
 * I find it relevant to the context because if article goes into less detail then it may confuse the reader and the reader may not understand why the host of 2013 Games is Turkey not Greece. And, it's a general convention (on Wikipedia) to describe the handover of hosting rights within the article of last edition of the Games. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   04:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) While the article mentions the cost of designing the Mediterrean Village, it does not address the total cost of the event. This should be added under the "Organisation" header.
 * Unfortunately, this information is not available in any reliable online source. Mediterranean Games are not adequately covered by major English news sources. I was unable to find the information in even French, Spanish or Italian news sources. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   04:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The article does not address concerns and/or controversies that occurred with the games. See examples in the 2008 Summer Olympics and 2006 Winter Olympics articles. One instance might be the Flavia Zoccari disqualification.
 * I'll look into it and will get back to you. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   03:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The article has a number of tense/grammar/punctuation issues. Here are examples, which I have corrected myself:
 * (a) The first edition of the Mediterranean Games was held in the Egyptian city of Alexandria in 1951, attracted 734 competitors from 10 nations.
 * (b) It was located in the municipality of Chieti, and was spread over an area of 18 acre, comprising a 7 acre public park.
 * (c) Equestrian was the only sport in which men and women compete together. (Should be competed)
 * (d) Former Prime Minister of Croatia and the president of the Croatian Olympic Committee Zlatko Mateša expressed his disappointment, "it just shows, once again, that small countries have no chance of competing with the big ones". (Comma should be on the outside of the period.)
 * I appreciate you taking care of all this. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   03:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion by H1nkles
 * In-line refs aren't required for the Lead of most articles since the Lead is intended to be a recap of the body of the article and the assumption is that any assertions made in the lead are cited in the body of the article.
 * Sorry, but I'm having trouble finding a reference in lead. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   13:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't look to see if there was one I was just commenting on the point made by the reviewer since the reviewer is new to GA reviews. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is neutral and the writing is fine for GA standards.
 * I think it is a good idea to style the article after Olympics articles and attempt to include as much of the information covered in those articles though we must keep in mind that the Olympic Games are a much larger scale and have a bigger profile so some topics either are not covered as thoroughly or may not apply at all.
 * It appears as though reference 102 may be a dead link, recommend investigating and fixing if necessary.
 * Fixed undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   07:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The comprehensiveness is ok though a little odd to have the cost of the athlete's village but no over all costs for the Games.
 * One question I had was at the end of the Organising Committee section it says, "Aracu's decision was reportedly motivated by the bureaucratic reasons." What "bureaucratic reasons" are we talking about?  That is clearly defined as I can see and should be if it's referenced here.  On a similar note this resignation and dissolution appears to be a significant issue.  Am I wrong?  Perhaps it warrants a bit more coverage.  What "urgent measures" needed to be addressed?  This would speak to the comprehensive question.
 * Overall I think it's pretty close to passing GA. I'd like to see a little bit more on the Organising Committee issues and that possible dead link fixed but then I think it should pass. I will leave it up to the original reviewer to make any final determinations.  Best of luck to everyone.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note - I've pinged the original reviewer to encourage finalization of this nomination. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * After two "second" opinions and a note put on the reviewer's talk page requesting completion of the review it is apparent that this review is not going to be finalized by the originating reviewer. I will go ahead and wrap it up.  I am confident based on all the notes here that the article meets the GA criteria and will confidently pass it to GA.  Should the original reviewer wish to discuss the GAN process or this particular review please post a note on my talk page and I will be happy to reply.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 14:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion by Dom497
 * According to the Manual of Style, no citations are needed in the lead/introduction of an article as long as the same information is repeated somewhere else within the article.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 01:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have a question for the reviewer: Are these all the tense/grammar issues you found? If so, criteria 1a should be a "pass" rather than a "fail". If there are still some tense/grammar issues, please list them here so the nominator can fix them.-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I had found additional tense/grammar issues. If I list each one out, wouldn't it be more effective for me to fix them at that point? I'm a little unclear about that. Thanks for the input. -- domest icen ginerd 04:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what a reviewer should be doing. Just saying they exist doesnt help much. Wizardman  14:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 102 should (but does not need to be) be fixed (it is dead; as mentioned by H1nkles).-- Dom497 ( talk ) 02:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   07:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)