Talk:Ski jumping at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Normal hill individual/GA1

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

Reviewer: ThaddeusB (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

First thoughts
In the past, I have inadvertently overwhelmed nominators by listing all my critiques at once, so I am going to try to do things a bit differently this time. I am going to only list one or two problems at a time and then continue once those are fixed. I may (or may not) end up listing a lot of points. Please do not be offended if this happens. It just means I am being thorough and most things will be very minor (and usually just missed because of the inherent difficultly of assessing one's own work). I expect the same when others review my work.

Now, on the article...  The first thing I want to say is that the article is already is pretty good shape. I do, however, note two shortcomings. The first is that there is no explanation as to how the starting 65 were chosen. The second is that the "preview" section is rather confusing. If you could try to work on making that section more clear, adding some info about how the Olympic field was chosen as you go, that would be great.

That's all for now. I'll probably do some copyedits tomorrow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. I probably won't be able to get to it until this weekend, unfortunately. Marylanderz (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I tlooks like Basement12 and you have been doing a lot of work on the article. Is the explanation for the starting 65 sufficient? Is the section describing the field still unclear? What else needs work? Marylanderz (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Basement took care of the problems with that section, so that's done. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Initial review
Taking a quick look at the good article criteria, I'd say it currently meets 5/6 criteria:
 * 1) The (minor) problems with confusing language/grammar have been cleaned up & the lead matches the current article (may need adjusted later, but its OK for now).
 * 2) The info is properly cited & there are no obvious MOS problems.
 * 3) (see below)
 * 4) No problems with neutrality
 * 5) No problems with stability
 * 6) Images are good

The one shortcoming is "3. Broad in its coverage". While short articles are acceptable, the article is expected to be reasonably comprehensive. I feel the article can be expanded on a few points: (the article doesn't necessarily need to answer every question, they are just for guidance)
 * There is little discussion about the venue itself/the mechanics of this competition. That is, what preparations went into preparing for the Olympic competition?  What are the physical properties of this hill as compared to others (the general rules are given, but no specific info)?  How did the judging panel handle the competition (wind monitoring, etc.)?
 * There is no mention of the pre-competition practice. Did anything unusual happen in practice (I believe one of the top competitors crashed, but that might have been the large hill?  What did the athletes say about the hill?
 * The article could use more discussion about those outside the top 5-10. The Olympics isn't exclusively about winning medals, so some discussion about others would be advisable.  Were there any interesting stories, personal best finishes, or complete meltdowns?  Why was the one guy disqualified (for crashing, presumably, but the reader doesn't necessarily know that)?

Hope that helps, ThaddeusB (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that most of the material suggested in your first point would be better placed in the higher level article Ski jumping at the 2010 Winter Olympics, covering all the 2010 ski jumping events (admittedly it isn't there yet either) as this article should focus solely on this event and I suspect the preparations applied to both normal and large hills. As for your other two points there may be something worth adding (I haven't looked but i'm not aware of an Eddie the eagle type story) but trivial info just for the sake of it should obviously be avoided. Basement12 (T.C) 14:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (re: hill preparation) Certainly, that is a valid point. However, I do feel it needs something.  It current doesn't even say the dimensions of this hill (just the legal limits to be considered a 'normal hill').
 * It's a judgment call, of course, but to me the article has more of a B-class ("Readers are not left wanting") feel than a GA-class one ("Useful to nearly all readers") in term of depth.... Perhaps, a different way of looking at this would be to say the article is currently pretty reliant on the official results.  Certainly the facts are important, the most important aspect of the article even, but what it currently lacks is (sourced) commentary about the results. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's been no work on the article, so if you feel it should be failed, then fail it. If you think it should be pased, pass it. No real benefit to leaving it that I can see. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 16:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In relation to the three points made on increasing the broadness of the coverage i'm unable to find anything notable to add. I've put in a request at WT:OLY for some other editors to take a look so perhaps given a few days further additions can be made. Basement12 (T.C) 15:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol unsupport vote.svg Unfortunately I am going to have to fail this one. IMO, the coverage is simply not broad enough to warrant GA status, and that doesn't appear likely to change in the near future.  It might take the use of foreign language sources (Ski jumping is very popular internationally), but I am sure there is more to be said than the article currently says.  Feel free to contact me and/or renominate if the article is expanded. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)