Talk:Rugby union at the Summer Olympics/GA1

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

GA Sweeps: On hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed.


 * 1) There are a few dead links that should be fixed. The Internet Archive may be able to help. - ✅
 * 2) Although it is not required by GA criteria (so it will not be a requirement for the review), it would be beneficial to add alt text to the images. See WP:ALT for assistance.
 * 3) The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines. - ✅ Some expansion carried out let me know if it's not yet sufficient
 * 4) Throughout the article there are several one or two-sentence paragraphs. Either expand on these or incorporate them into another paragraph to improve the flow of the article.
 * 5) I don't think that File:Olympics postcard.jpg is necessary for including in the article since it's non-free and doesn't really show too much. It's current fair use rationale doesn't seem strong enough to warrant inclusion. Maybe consider using one or both of the images at Category:Rugby union at the Olympic Games. ✅
 * 6) "Three National Olympic Committees (NOC) each entered a team at the 1900 games. They were France, Germany and Great Britain." This could probably be rewritten as one sentence. - Corrected ✅
 * 7) "Rules were also different from today's, with 3 points for both tries and penalties, 2 points for a conversion and 4 for a drop goal." For those unfamiliar with today's rules, actually compare the differences between modern rules. - Corrected ✅
 * 8) "Constantin Henriquez de Zubiera, a player on the French team, is the first known coloured athlete to compete in the Olympic Games." This could use a source. - Referenced ✅
 * 9) The last paragraphs in the "1908", "1920", "1924", and the "Subsequent games" sections are unsourced. Also address the "citation needed" tags, which have been tagged since last month. Cite any other statements that may be questioned by a reader. - ✅ references added to paragraphs some unconfirmable material removed
 * 10) "Besides the individual host cities' requests, the IRB didn't focus its..." Contractions shouldn't be used in articles unless within quotes. Fix any other occurrences. - Corrected ✅

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll help do a final copyedit of the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job addressing some of the issues. I have struck the completed ones above. Since some progress has been made, I'll leave the article on hold for another week. It would be great if progress could be made on the other tasks so the article could remain a GA. Again, if there are any questions, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found the dead links on Internet archives but how should I go about using them as references? Can I treat them as I would any other online citation? Basement12 (T.C) 10:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the citation template just place the Internet Archive url in place of the dead link. You can include Internet Archive as the publisher, but you should continue to cite the original website newspaper, author, date, etc. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Kept
Good work addressing the issues. I went through and made some minor changes, please review my edits. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It may be beneficial to update some of the older access dates for the citations. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)