Talk:Russia at the 2016 Summer Paralympics/GA1

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

Reviewer: 333-blue (talk · contribs) 12:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I will start reviewing this soon!  333-blue  12:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status – Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
I've addressed a lot of the style and citation issues just now. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Other comments
Since the Paralympics have not taken place, and anything can happen between now and the end of the games, I think it is premature for this nomination to have been made and the review to be taking place. While Russia has been disqualified, and it seems like nothing could happen to undo the disqualification for any athlete, we can't be sure that it's impossible. We don't allow movie's about to be released to be Good Articles, or even released movies before all the critical reaction is in; similarly, we don't allow GAs for sporting events that haven't yet occurred. For example, I would expect this article to discuss how the Russian athletes would have fared given, for example, their previous (or qualifying) times as compared to the actual times of the winners, something that is clearly impossible until the Paralympics are over.

Under the circumstances, this review should be put on hold at least until after the Paralympics have ended, and the article has been updated based on what happened there. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I deeply regret having to do this, but I have formally placed the article on hold at its talk page, and undone the stated passage. The whole point behind waiting is to see whether events require further additions to the article and if so, whether those changes also meet the GA criteria. To pass it as it is now and only postpone the formal acknowledgement is simply inappropriate under the circumstances. I have also taken a look at the article, and am concerned about the comprehensiveness of the review. The Equestrian section, for example, varies between singular and plural such that I don't know how many individual athletes were involved; I would also normally expect the athletes to be named when discussing individual events rather than team events, as is the case in a number of the sports. Other sports subsections:
 * The 7-a-side football seems to contradict itself as to groups; if the listed countries started out in Group B and there was no redraw, how did they end up in Group A?
 * Athletics refers to "a number of" Russian qualifiers, but only mentions two of the spots, which were reallocated to Australia. How many were there in toto, and who were they reallocated to? Why only mention Australia? This is surely a broadness issue.
 * Under Archery, I don't understand why Archers helping Russia in their qualifying campaign at this competition included is the phrasing; why isn't it something more clear and concise like "Archers qualifying for Rio included"? Did some individual archers qualify for specific events, but there were going to be other Russians competing in their place? If so, that should certainly be mentioned.
 * Paracanoeing: since Russian and Ukraine are separate countries, I don't understand the mention of the latter regarding the second spot in this section. Who was the Russian who earned the second Russian spot, and why include a Ukrainian at all?
 * Rowing: if this was a single sculls qualification, who was the single sculler?
 * Shooting: the second and third paragraphs appear to be talking about qualifying for the same Paralympic event, but the name of the event is not worded the same. Which is the official name?

I've also made a few corrections to the article that should have been noted in the review. 333-blue, did you ever get a mentor to guide you in GA reviewing as strongly recommended by myself, Wolbo, and Prhartcom after some of your earlier reviews had issues? I still think that would help. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just clarified the Shooting World Cup stuff. It appeared to actually be a series of three events, not to be confused with the Shooting World Championships ViperSnake151   Talk  01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * ViperSnake151, it's been four weeks since I posted the above list of issues. In that time, of the six sections I mentioned, you've only worked on Archery and Shooting. In the former, the revised prose is a bit problematic (Among the archers that had qualified included), and you've not taken advantage of the source's identification of eight athletes by the event they qualified for. I have no idea why they've omitted the two W1 athletes' names, but I imagine you can find them in another source's athlete listing. Are you planning on addressing the issues soon? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Final recommendation
Given the problems with the article noted above, and the failure to address the majority of them, my recommendation is that this be closed as unsuccessful. Once ViperSnake151 is able to do the necessary work on the article, it can be renominated. 333-blue, if you're still interested in continuing this review, the close is up to you. Otherwise, if nothing happens in the next seven days, I'll close it myself. Note that I have not yet reviewed the new material on the protests at the Rio Paralympics having to do with the Russian athletes, nor the alternative events held in Russia for those athletes. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It has been a full seven days, and neither this review nor the article itself have been edited to address the issues with the article. I am therefore closing this nomination with the article not listed as a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)