Talk:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1

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

Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 21:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I'll do this review over the next week. Committing to it now so I remember to do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Its a pass. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Williams narrowly missed qualifying for the 100 m  the word narrowly isn't needed (conciscion, also possibly neutrality)
 * Jason Rogers, one of the relay team members, just missed qualifying  it would be better to say did not qualify or remove just. Concision and tone (this could be a neutrality issue, but I thought better to put it in the copy edit section)
 * Brijesh Lawrence very narrowly qualified same as above: he either qualified or he didn't. The modifiers aren't concise and change the tone of the article.
 * He was a little faster in the semifinals, more clear and concise to say something like He improved his time...
 * and is the oldest sprinter at these Games uses present tense. The games were a year ago.
 * its official debut  did they have an unofficial debut? If not, remove official for concision.
 * who set a historic milestone  this is more of a neutrality issue, but can also be addressed under concision: just state that he was the first to participate in five games. The reader will know this is historic (for a humourous take on this, see WP:ASTONISHME).
 * Done with all.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Per MOS:BOLDAVOID, Saint Kitts and Nevis and the Olympics shouldn't be bolded and linked at the same time. MOS doesn't dictate that things without a formal and well known name be bolded, so what you do here is up to you. Everything else looks to comply with MOS
 * Because the title of the article is not in the first sentence, I think I am supposed to unbold it, which I have done.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * References are in an acceptable style guideline.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Can you reference the introductory sentence to athletics? It is contained in all the references, but even DYK requires a citation per paragraph, and I like to see it on GAs too.
 * Fair enough, I think I had issues finding a single source for all of them, but was able to find one pretty easily this time. Done!  Kees08  (Talk)   07:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Similarly, can we have a notes column in the table so people can easily link to the references from the table? The default style of Wikipedia is prose, but a lot of our readers only view the tables and graphics so having references here is helpful.
 * , thanks for the changes. From what I can tell, this is the only one that wasn't addressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I really hate working with wiki tables, so I saved it for last. Done.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig comes up clean
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No neutrality issues
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No edit wars
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All have valid licenses on Commons.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * I actually think the picture of Adams in his heat detracts from the article: it is of so low quality with the sun (?) on the left side that it is distracting. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that, wish I had photoshop and was proficient in it to fix it.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * , overall pretty good. It needs some cleanup, but it is definitely not beyond bringing up to GA standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that, wish I had photoshop and was proficient in it to fix it.  Kees08  (Talk)   07:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * , overall pretty good. It needs some cleanup, but it is definitely not beyond bringing up to GA standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)