Talk:Netball and the Olympic Movement/GA2

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

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Hawkeye7, thank you for volunteering to review the article. However, I respectfully ask two questions: (1) do you feel that an article that is only two days old is sufficiently "stable" (particularly since we have a merger proposal pending), and (2) do you feel that your four edits during the article's brief life were "substantial?" diff and diff and diff Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: }
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: }
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Your merger proposal doesn't appear to be a problem at present: Talk:International Federation of Netball Associations.
 * It is now just a discussion, where you have received some feedback, and it is over until you want to take it to Proposed mergers. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 23:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Twenty-four hours is not enough time to get a representative sample of opinions. Also for most of that time, an editor was removing the merger templates without discussion or talk page notice. Article is now queued up at WP:PM and I suggest that any GAN be postponed until the issue is decided. In addition, the article has been moved (without widespread discussion) by the reviewer.  There are so many edits going on that I cannot see how anyone could claim that the article is stable. Racepacket (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is up to the reviewer to decide whether it is too unstable. Instability can be a problem, but if the reviewer considers the article to be moving rapidly towards the goal, it is his time being consumed. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead
 * 2) *"has been seen" -> "was seen"
 * 3) * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Possible bias against netball as a women's sport
 * 5) * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) *"Possible" is a WP:WEASEL word here. Delete per WP:ALLEGED
 * 7) * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) "The critics view the exclusion of netball from the Summer Olympics as part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports." What critics? Who? Suggest re-wording as a statement of fact. eg "The ommission of netball from the Summer Olympics has been part of a pattern of exclusion of women's sports." (and use "exclude only one in the sentence)
 * 9) * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) *Second paragraph requires reference (and is too short - consider merging in) (and perhaps better "Evan at" in the last sentence, so as to avoid repetition.)
 * 11) * Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Tense in third paragraph "is structural" vs "recieved", "rationalised" vis "are" Stick to the present here.
 * 13) *Should ice hockey and softball be mentioned? Water polo?
 * 14) ** Mentioned elsewhere or no sources have been found by the contributor to this topic as yet. Ice hockey may also be a special case as it Winter Olympics may be different. Sources are generally lacking related to this topic. :( If we ever go further with it, would definetley make note to try to get more information about that. --LauraHale (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) The Olympic Games
 * 16) *Suggest renaming "Olympic recognition"
 * 17) ** Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) *I know IOC is defined in the lead, but define it here, with the abbreviation.
 * 19) ** Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) *"One attempt was made in 1989" Any information on earlier attempts?
 * 21) ** Checked multiple sources and spent a few hours hunting around IFNA and OIC websites. Could not find additional references. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) *"get the sport included" I think you mean "played" here
 * 23) ** Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) *Move the fourth paragraph into the previous section
 * 25) ** Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) *And the fifth (about Rugby). I would add however that while these are mainly men's sports, the 2016 schedule calls for teams for both sexes. It remains to be seen how the rugby will work out. Sorry; back to the review:
 * 27) ** Fixed kind of by referencing that these sports are mostly known for their play by men. --LauraHale (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) *Geary and Broomhall are mentioned in the quote but do not appear in the bibliography
 * 29) ** The refeences are from the quote. Do I need to dig out the references to them from the source? --LauraHale (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) *I don't suppose that we know how netball stacked up against the table conditions? That would make a nice extra column
 * 31) ** Not addressed in the source. I know netball met these qualifications and got their recognition renewed.  The exact details do not appear on the site. --LauraHale (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) *The section ends a bit abruptly. Anything to say about the process of acceptance? (have a look at Rugby at the Olympics
 * 33) ** I have not seen any sources that could be useful here. :/ The games have not been accepted and the acceptance of recognition issue appears to be best defined by IFNA's commitment to maintaining this status. (It could also possibly involve Olympic committmet to improving women's participation but that appears to be framed around everything but including women's sport.) --LauraHale (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) Funding
 * 35) *Unlink IOC here
 * 36) ** Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) Any chance of a generic picture? Netball icon?
 * 38) ** Added an info boxed. It was there at some point but got removed. :( --LauraHale (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 39) Add the Olympic portal.
 * 40) ** Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 41) Notes 2 and 3 require references
 * 42) ** Fixed. --LauraHale (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)