Talk:44th Chess Olympiad/GA1

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this review. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * see 2D
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig shows 21% risk, so a good level. Will do a source spotcheck for plagiarism, OR, and close paraphrasing. Done successfully.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Any progress? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Will get started now. Some points to begin with:
 * Per WP:LEAD, "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". Six rather messy paragraphs do not satisfy the criteria.
 * Notes need to be cited.
 * Some citations could be improved in format/layout: 2, 49, 123.
 * Per MOS:OVERSECTION, "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." This applies to the short pararaphs in the preparations, marketing, broadcasting, and concerns sections.
 * "Women's" vs "women's" needs to be standardised
 * "The women's tournament featured three of the ten top players according to the FIDE rating list published in July 2022: sisters Mariya Muzychuk and Anna Muzychuk plus Nana Dzagnidze." must be cited as it is a statistic.

Placing this on hold while work goes on. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've improved the article in line with the points above. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Passing now. Congratulations! AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)