Talk:Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles

Results/Controversies Section Edit
I largely reverted this reversion, although several edits were made after it, which I tried to incorporate.

The older version of the article:
 * used a "Controversy" section (generally frowned upon);
 * did not describe the results in paragraph form;
 * had many citation issues (even properly cited information was sometimes out of context);
 * featured several weasel words (especially variations of "journalists");
 * contained out-of-date information (see the "As of 2014" line—this information was updated in the version that existed prior to the reversion); and
 * had problems with tense and duplicate information.

Subsequent edits, in addition to adding information, also flagged many of these issues. But the pre-revert version, while definitely not perfect, had far fewer problems. I also modified that version to, as stated, include some of the information that was added and also to try to organize the information in a bit cleaner fashion, focusing on subject-matter rather than support/oppose. As it stands, the section covers several facets of the controversy, including: (1) the general reaction (including the petition and skaters' general remarks); (2) concerns regarding the composition of the judging panel, and (3) the change in the scoring system that emphasized technical performance at the expense of artistry (a portion which covers the fact that several who agreed with the outcome under the scoring system would also say things like "Kim outskated Sotnikova").

Especially in light of the fact that many skaters fell into the "I preferred Kim's skate, but the outcome makes sense under the scoring system" category, I think it's best to avoid the "supporting"/"opposing" sections. Previously, some of these skaters were put in both sections.--73.59.168.246 (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * In a similar vein, I reverted the last edit (diff) to this article, which itself, though not marked, appeared to be a reversion (see this version of the article from September 2021). That version of the article (1) only discussed the controversy over the results, (2) contained uncited sentences and weasel words (and even included the templates paired with such sentences), and (3) contained citations that didn't support the sentences they paired with. (I know this because I was one of the editors who worked on the article in the interim.)--12.200.16.130 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the above explanation, I reverted this edit, which was essentially another reversion of the article to its prior state. I also found no basis for the suggestion that pro-Russia propaganda was introduced in the article.--96.94.213.161 (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)