Talk:Vatican City at the 2022 Mediterranean Games/GA2

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

Nominator: 07:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Going to start the review! Looks much better than it was during the first review, grammar and prose are cleaner already and the article is slightly more thorough.
 * Sorry for the delay, finally getting to do the review after a few days of procrastinating it. My apologies! Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 21:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Prose is clear and understandable. The lead is a good summary of the non-background part of the article, although a few words could be added about the background context (just adding After previously participating as observers in the 2019 Games of the Small States of Europe and as guests in the 2022 Championships of the Small States of Europe, ... should do it). Sections are good, but the invitation/delegation paragraph doesn't really fit in the "background" section. Article is factual, with no issues regarding words to watch (the "unofficial and symbolic" part is well-explained), and the sports result work with the "embedded list" format.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * All sources seem to be reliable, with secondary sourcing used whenever possible. No signs of OR, and Earwig's only hit (the infobae.com source) comes from the incorporated quote and names like 2019 Games of the Small States of Europe.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * With only one athlete, the topic isn't a very wide one to cover, but the key facts are still here. The background context is helpful without being overbearing.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No real dispute to speak of. Maybe you could mention (in the Background section) that Carnicelli's earlier third place result was also unofficial?
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The two images (country flag and stadium picture) are properly used, with the latter having a descriptive caption. Not sure about whether the license of the stadium picture is accurate (claimed as CC BY-SA 4.0 "own work" by the uploader, but appears to be a drone picture), although I don't think that's an issue for the GA nomination.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Barring some minor style details that can be easily fixed, the article is good to go!
 * Barring some minor style details that can be easily fixed, the article is good to go!

Here's the review done, I'm going to fix the small details and mark the article as passed! Chaotıċ Enby  (talk · contribs) 22:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)