Talk:Haiti at the 1924 Summer Olympics/GA1

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

Nominator: 13:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 00:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this some time in the next few days. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 00:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

, the review is posted below. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 00:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Thebiguglyalien I think I've addressed most of the comments? Let me know if I did some things wrong and I'll fix them right up, no worries. Arconning (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

General notes:
 * There are issues throughout the article with clauses that don't seem to go together or tenses that seem off. It needs to be looked over to make sure everything reads as natural speech. Among other things, look for run-on sentences and for sentences that aren't parallel (like the ones that mix "-ing" and "-ed" when describing things in a row, such as competed, placed, and not finishing).
 * ✅, hopefully.
 * None of the tables have references. This could arguably fall under the same citation rules as a lead or an infobox where it's fine if it's cited elsewhere in the body, but it wouldn't hurt to add citations, whether in their own column or below each table with "Sources: "
 * I don't generally do this but ✅? Let me know if I did it incorrectly.

Lead: Background: Shooting:
 * with eight athletes, three in athletics – For most sports, it's not an issue to use "athletes". But since competitors in athletics are called athletes, I'd suggest describing the athletes and sport shooters collectively with a different word, like competitors or something similar.
 * first medal at the Olympic Games – Would it make sense to change this to "first medal at any Olympic Games"? Otherwise it could be read as first medal at the 1924 Olympic Games.
 * first medal at the Olympic Games – Would it make sense to change this to "first medal at any Olympic Games"? Otherwise it could be read as first medal at the 1924 Olympic Games.
 * It seems redundant to list the competitors in the background section and then list them again when describing how they were selected for the delegation.
 * ✅, hopefully.
 * Prior to the athletics events at the Games, the first athletics competition in Haiti was held by the Union Sportive Societies d'Haiti... – This paragraph should be clearer that it's a separate event and not part of the Games. A reader skimming this would just see that these athletes performed without realizing it's a separate event. I'd actually put this in the background section since it's not part of the Olympic athletics competition.
 * running in the seventeenth heat and ran – Consider rewording to avoid the redundant running/ran.
 * running in the seventeenth heat and ran – Consider rewording to avoid the redundant running/ran.
 * Same with the athletics section, it should be more obvious that the first paragraph isn't about the Games and it might be better suited for the background section.
 * Is there a maximum number of points possible? That would help explain how well or poorly they did.
 * Not a major issue, but Haiti is called "the nation" two sentences in a row, which feels repetitive.
 * Not a major issue, but Haiti is called "the nation" two sentences in a row, which feels repetitive.
 * Not a major issue, but Haiti is called "the nation" two sentences in a row, which feels repetitive.

References:
 * All sources appear to be reliable.
 * "Paris 1924: The Olympic Games come of age" – Good.
 * WGPO 1924, p. 7. – This source doesn't seem to support anything here except that McDougal was at some point chief of the Gendarmerie. Is it all in the other sources? If so, does this one serve any purpose?
 * ✅, replaced.
 * "Silvio Cator Biographical information". Olympedia. – I see what the use of this source is going for here, but I have reservations. It's not ideal that you have to click on links in the source to navigate to other pages for the information that actually supports the text. I won't make a big issue out of this, but it's worth mentioning. despite being a favorite to win the event also isn't supported. It looks like this depends on the prior citation and repeats that information, which is maybe fine, but since it's redundant anyway it might just be simplest to remove this part.
 * ✅, removed the part and added the individual sources for the results for the rest of the athletes as well.
 * CNOF 1924, p. 576. – Good.