Talk:Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1

Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Comments
 * Avoid overlinking. In the USOC city selection section alone, San Fancisco, Los Angeles and Peter Uberoth are linked twice
 * Yes there were many. I removed a bunch.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted in the main talk page, there is not much need for the references in the lead, especially if they already exist in the article body.
 * It does seem that the uncited lead style is becoming more heavily favored. Looking at the first 10 articles at Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2009, I find seven articles where all WP:LEAD paragraphs have no citations and three where at least one has no citations.  This is quite a shift from when there was a fairly even splite between fully cited and fully uncited leads.  I will make the necessary changes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it is personal opinion, and not something I would hold up a GA pass over. Resolute 04:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of there being so many "On date X, Y occurred" statements to begin paragraphs. Its akin to being a bullet point list without the bullets.
 * O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Chicago's chances for hosting the 2016 Summer Olympics are bolstered by preliminary commitments made by major corporations and wealthy Chicago philanthropists; promised participation in the planning process by community and government leaders and the enthusiasm of the citizenry." This is a direct copy from .  Perhaps inadvertent, but I do not believe entire paragraphs should be copied verbatim, especially without credit.  Please reword.
 * Done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Most importantly, the city's existing infrastructure and venue options are substantial and equal other top contenders like Madrid and Tokyo." Opinion with no source
 * I have hidden this statement.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "As of the announcement on April 14..." (financing) April 14 of what year?
 * The prior sentence includes an April 11, 2007 date so I think adding the year might be repetitive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Chicago has strong allies to pursue federal funds for security and transportation due to its high profile U.S. Senator.[39]" Source does not support statement
 * The ref was useless. Do we need a ref to say that it is advantageous that the president is from Chicago and the number two ranking United States Senator represents our state.  Those just seem to be givens?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not fully convinced, but I'll let it slide.
 * Overlinking again in the Venues section. All of the parks have already been linked, for example, and in a couple cases are linked twice more in this section.
 * I think I got most of these now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Chicagoans are famous for their rabid support of their home teams: the Chicago Bears, Chicago Blackhawks, Chicago Wolves, Chicago Cubs, Chicago White Sox, Chicago Bulls, and more recently, Chicago Rush, Chicago Fire, and the Chicago Machine. Other events such as the Chicago Marathon, one of the largest marathon events worldwide, will also play a part in Chicago's Olympic-planning process." Opinions without source
 * It should be better now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rio is identified as a "dark horse" that can ride away with the competition." Ride away? Jargony
 * Hopefully, it is better now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Several references require formatting - #s 28, 29, 73, 74, 96, 97
 * Refs fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference 23 is dead
 * I have hidden the fact sourced by this dead link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes gamesbids.com a reliable source?
 * According to http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/about.html it is a staffed publication that serves as an Olympic Bid compendium.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I find the article to be comprehensive, but concerns I have mainly around prose quality and referencing require addressing before I can consider passing this article at this time. As such, I will place it on hold pending the resolution of these concerns. Resolute 14:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost everything fixed. I do have a new concern though, relating to this article, which admittedly appeared after my initial review.  There is evidently a small, but notable, opposition to the bid, and I think this should be incorporated. An IP editor mentioned it in the main talk, but provided only non-notable sources, so I dismissed it initially.  Opposition also gets small mentions here and here.  Based on Vancouver's experience, I would anticipate that opposition will grow in intensity, if not in popularity, as the vote nears.  It would be wise to begin to incorporate some of this.  Probably just a paragraph for now, perhaps in the Controversy section? Resolute 23:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * and fixed! I am now satisfied that this is a good article.  Care will have to be taken in the next several months that it remains comprehensive, however. Resolute 16:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)