Talk:2019 Military World Games/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the ✅ tag to state when something is addressed.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

 * It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
 * It contains copyright infringements -
 * It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include,, or large numbers of , , or similar tags. (See also ). -
 * It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

General

 * I know this has been waiting a long time, but this isn't a suitable GA at the present moment. Here's a series of things that caused me to not want the article to go on hold, and fail right out.

Minor:
 * 1) WP:BOLDAVOID in lede
 * 2) retail stores were newly opened - opened for the event, newly is present tense.
 * 3) What's a "chinese sturgeon"?
 * 4) .[31][32][33][34] - WP:CITEKILL.
 * 5) Why are quotes in italics?
 * 6) It was reported that 109 nations - by whom? There's clearly 110 from the full list below, which was overkill too.

Major:
 * 1) Most of the info in the lede should be in the body.
 * 2) Random external links (suitable for WP:LINKROT) in the results section
 * 3) No commentary on the medals/results
 * 4) Very short sections such as bidding, marketing and venues need expansion
 * 5) The WP:WEIGHT seems massively off. Why are we drawing attention to one venue over others, or one record being beaten?
 * 6) The list of venues seems a bit long, needs signifcant commentary as to what's going on/where it's sourced to.
 * 7) Article is need of a copyedit, as some things make zero sense when read.

GA Review

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


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

Review meta comments

 * I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for failing this one so quickly, but there just isn't enough here (or even close to) for me to believe this will meet the WP:BROAD criteria. I've left some comments above, but this would need a lot more for it to have a successful nomination in the future. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)