Talk:Equatorial Guinea at the 2000 Summer Olympics/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll try and review this one shortly. Canadian  Paul  14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a few comments:
 * 1) IIRC, Eric Moussambani gained some notoriety with the nickname "Eric the Eel". In terms of completeness, I feel that since he earned that name at the Games, readers would likely be searching for information on that, or at least a mention, and it should be easy to find reliable sources that discuss this aspect.
 * ✅ That aspect has been added. MWright96 (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Under "Swimming", third paragraph: "like Moussambani, Bolopa qualified for the Games as a wildcard because she did not meet the minimum qualification standards for the women's 50 metre freestyle, following submission to swimming trials and was selected after training for one and a half months." - I feel like there is something missing here, but I don't know what it is because I don't understand the sentence in its entirety with the addition of the second half.
 * I have removed it to avoid confusion. MWright96 (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Same paragraph, two problems with the following sentences: "Bolopa took part in the contest's first heat on 22 September, finishing second out of three entered participants, with a time of one minute and 3.97 seconds. The time set a new record as the slowest for a female athlete in Olympic history and was double the slowest time. 1) How could it be the slowest time ever if she finished second out of three entrants? If someone was disqualified or didn't show up, that should be clarified. 2) In the second sentence, does this mean it was double the time of the next slowest athlete or double the time of the previous record? This should also be clarified.
 * Bolopa's time was double the fastest swimmer and one of the heat's participant's was disqualified for a false start. MWright96 (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  22:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have made amendments where possible. Is there anything else that needs my attention? MWright96 (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * After the most recent edits, I believe that this article now meets the GA criteria and will therefore be passing it as such. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian   Paul  22:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * this is not the first Olympics GA I see passed that violates MOS:LEAD, specifically MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD. MOS:PSEUDOHEAD should also be observed, even if it's strictly speaking not part of the GACR. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments . In regards to the former, I've seen that reverted back and forth on so many articles (including good and featured ones) that I tend to just leave it alone to avoid the edit warring. If you want to fix it, you have my support. As for the second one, half the time I try to raise anything that's not explicitly on the list, I get pointed to WP:GANOT. While I won't pretend that I was aware of this particularly part of the MOS, even if I had been, I wouldn't have raised it. It's actually one of the reasons I rarely review GAs anymore... too many editors who want to force strict adherence to the guidelines so they can add another bauble to their user page and too few who want to actually improve articles (not accusing the nom of anything, just a general observation from having reviewed for a long time and lurked for even longer). Best option is usually just to do it yourself and hope you don't get reverted. Canadian   Paul  23:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree,, a GA review should focus on the GACR. Calling for every obscure MOS to be followed is not the point of GA; it's not even the point of FA. So, I hope I didn't discourage you and your GA philosophy, which I think is commendable. But yeah, I'll just implement the edits myself. I'm just one of those miserable editors who can't help it if they see something that the MOS does not agree with ;). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)