Talk:Netball and the Olympic Movement/GA1

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is a quick fail for the following grounds:

A) It does not offer a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Explain that "funding" refers to funding through the IFNA and does not include local sponsorship etc. The article could list all of the NGB's that have jurisdiction over netball (but again, that would overlap with the IFNA article).

B) It is not accurate - it is based on a misconception. The International Olympic Committee recognizes International Federations (IFs).  After a 20-year campaign discussed in the article, the International Federation of Netball Associations (IFNA) was recognized, not Netball as a sport.  The factors used by the IOC to recognize the IFNA turned more on its assessment of the IFNA than of the "merits" of netball as a sport. Hence, the recognition battle is more accurately reported under that article.  The degree of overlap between the two suggests a merger.

C) Verifiabiliy - I suggest we use the best possible sources for these statements. For example, while Taylor wrote a social history of netball, press coverage of the IOC may be a more reliable source for some of the matters covered.

D) Clarity - Change the heading "National Chapters" to "National governing bodies" (again, this highlights how this is really a discussion of the IFNA's chapters).

E) POV - reading the article give the impression that the author(s) seem to believe that Netball should be an Olympic sport. I have no opinion but I believe arguments on both sides can be presented without speaking in the voice of Wikipedia.

F) Words to watch - please remove them.

G) Stability - this article is so new (created a day and a half ago) that it has not yet had the opportunity to be vetted by a wide variety of interested Wikipedia editors. Currently there is on-going discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics as to whether this article should be renamed or merged.  I suggest waiting at least a month to see how these discussions settle down before renominating.

Good luck with the article, but a great deal more work is required to bring it to GA standards.