Talk:Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 12:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The nominator neglected to leave the GAN banner on the article's talk page. I added it, so it may seem that I am both the nominator and the reviewer. This is not so – User:Marylanderz listed the article at WP:GAN at 14:16 system time on February 21. It is now March 23. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 12:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have updated the banner to reflect this. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 12:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality: Some points:
 * The silver and bronze medals were both taken by German sliders The passive voice is substandard; avoid it whenever possible. And it's possible here – German sliders took both the silver and bronze medals
 * Another: Women's skeleton at the 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver, Canada  was held at the Whistler Sliding Centre in Whistler, British Columbia. How about: The Whistler Sliding Centre in Whistler, British Columbia was the site of the women's skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics
 * They entrust 4 to 7 officials Numbers less than 10 should be spelled out
 * While I think what you're trying to do in the "Rules and description of competition" section is give a generalized description of how skeleton events work (verbs in present tense), I think it would be an improvement if it were phrased as a specific description of this particular event (verbs in past tense, since the event has taken place).
 * finished outside the medal contention Isn't "medal contention" a state before the event? After it's taken place, you're either a medalist or you're not. So would finished outside the medals be better?
 * The test event held at the venue was also won by Trott. Another passive voice construction.
 * On 19 February, the final two runs will take place at 15:45 PST and 16:45 PST. Eek, future tense, in an article on an event that took place almost two months ago.
 * During the first run, Amy Williams shattered the previous course "Shattered" seems a little POV. Why not just "broke?"
 * by only 0.09 seconds Similarly, "only" is a bit of POV fluff. Trailed by 0.09 seconds works just fine.
 * A protest was lodged with officials following Williams' successful first day of competition. Another passive construction. You mention who filed the protest in the lead, but not below in the body. Why not?
 * According to competition rules, the jury of officials inspected the helmet, Perhaps in accordance with competition rules ? According to has a distinct meaning, at least as I read it.
 * A second protest, filed jointly by the US and Canada on the 19th, was also rejected. So there were two protests? Is this significant to mention in the lead? Who filed the first one?
 * The silver and bronze medals were won by two German athletes As above.
 * but was overtaken by a number of other athletes and finished sixth.
 * B. MOS compliance:
 * The lead seems a little short. When I think GA, I think at least a 2 paragraph lead. However, a simple cosmetic change might help – just start a new paragraph with Williams' victory
 * Also, the lead should only contain boldfaced words if they are an exact restatement of the article title. Further, the boldfaced restatement of the article title (if this article were suitable for one) shouldn't contain links either.
 * Whenever possible, avoid back-to-back wikilinks like Canadian Melissa Hollingsworth Constructions like this give the impression that Canadian Melissa Hollingsworth is the term being linked, which can lead to reader confusion (probably more likely in other examples, but all the same, this should be avoided when possible). In this case, I think the piped link to Canada at the 2010 Winter Olympics should be avoided per WP:EGG.
 * Trivial links to articles on nations in the "Preview" section. Suggest removal.
 * Links to IOC and FIBT in the "Standing records" section are probably trivial and should be removed, but if they're to remain, I wouldn't link to the acronyms. This is the clear exception to WP:R2D; if those titles ever become something other than redirects, they'd just be dab pages, which are pointless to link to.
 * Acronyms should be spelled out the first time they're used, so if Pacific Standard Time is to remain in the "Competition" section, it needs to be spelled out once. However, I'm not sure it's terribly significant to give the exact times of day the event runs took place.
 * a top speed of 143.3kph Convert units like these whenever they show up. Here's how: 143.3 km/h
 * Some athletes are linked in the "Competition" section; some are not. All are listed and linked in the bulleted list under "Qualified athletes" above, so I'm not sure any such links are necessary.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Reference structure is sound, and all links are currently live. However, I think it's pretty likely that the Vancouver 2010 links are going to die out. Beijing 2008 links have. So I'd try to archive these.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Melissa Hollingsworth, competing on home soil and called the favorite to win in a number of media accounts, Probably a good place for a conspicuous citation. Or three.
 * Are the two paragraphs under "Logistics" wholly covered by citations 2 and 3?
 * 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 and alternative text:
 * All three images are free and on commons. No alt text; though. It's not actually required for GA, so I can't fail the article if you don't add it, but I strongly encourage you to add it.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: A little work yet to do, but I think you'll get there with little difficulty.  Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have informed the WikiProjects for which this article bears talkpage banners, as User:Marylanderz has not edited Wikipedia since March 5. If the article is not improved by April 9, I will fail it. Nosleep ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 08:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think i've taken care of all your points other than archiving links (don't think archives are available until 6 months after a webpage comes into existence) Basement12 (T.C) 10:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was all in the process of making the final minor edits to then pass this last night when a massive windstorm knocked out my internet. I will do so now. Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 02:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)