Wikipedia:Featured article review/Art competitions at the Olympic Games/archive2

Art competitions at the Olympic Games

 * Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

 * Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics and User talk:Jeronimo. Sandy 19:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Previous nomination for WP:FAR: Featured article review/Art competitions at the Olympic Games/archive1.

The (very short) lead does not summarize the article. Take these sentences from the lead:


 * The competitions were an idea of Pierre de Frédy, Baron de Coubertin, founder of the modern Olympic Movement.
 * The art competitions were abandoned in 1954 because artists were contended to be professionals, while Olympic athletes were required to be amateurs.
 * Since 1956, the Olympic cultural programme has taken the place of the art competitions.

The article never returns to any of these important points and leaves the reader puzzled. How did de Frédy get his idea? How successful was he in promoting it? How long did it take to get this off the ground? Was there a big debate in 1954 or did the competitions die a relatively quiet death? Did the point about professionalism become contentious earlier? Was this the only reason the competitions were dropped or were there other problems? What is the Olympic cultural programme and how is it similar to the defunct art competitions? Shouldn't Olympic cultural programme be linked?

The referencing is sparse, two works are listed and no inline citations are found. This is not damning in itself but it doesn't help either.

The article is one of our shortest featured articles and it does not at all seem comprehensive, it certainly leaves me with many unanswered questions. Some of them are above and I can add some more: How popular was this event? What was its impact? How big were the prices?

While the article fails to address important issues it is stuffed full with trivia, some of it irrelevant - for example the article ends with this sentence: "The oldest Olympic medallist outside the art competitions is Swedish shooter Oscar Swahn, who won his last medal at age 72." I know that sports coverage tends to accumulate trivia like who was the oldest to win this or that competition, or who won the most prices in a given category but overview articles should aim to put events into their broader cultural context rather than focus on trivia and records.

The structure of the article is poor, it is split into "Competition", which goes into the nuts-and-bolts of individual events, and "Competitors", which consists almost entirely of trivia. I'm not saying that the assorted facts about individual competitors need to go but I'm suggesting that more general content needs to be added. Haukur 12:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

'''We both wrote our nominations at the same time (edit clash). Here's mine:''' By my reckoning the article fails the following criteria:
 * 2a. eg. "Like in the athletic events at the Olympics, gold, silver, and bronze medals were awarded to the highest ranked artists, although not all medals were awarded in each competition. On a few occasions, no medals were in fact handed out at all."
 * 2b. The article has two sections: Competition and Competitors, both are short. For example, the Sculpture subsection of Competition is the following: "The sculpture class had only a single category until 1928, when separate competitions were designated; one for statues and one for reliefs and medals. In 1936, this was split up further, creating separate categories for reliefs and medals." Hardly comprehensive. Perhaps seperate "History", "Legacy", "Precedent"/"Similar competitions" sections could be added?
 * 2c. Article has two references, neither are cited inline.
 * 3a. Lead section is short and underdeveloped. Despite being only five sentences it covers most of the history before and after the competitions, this history is not eloborated upon in the article.
 * 3c. as per 2b.
 * 5. at 8 kB the article is exceedingly short.

For these reasons it fails criterion 1, it does not exemplify our best work. --Oldak Quill 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As the main author and nominator, I'll see into the concerns addressed above. Looking at the article now, I notice some essential parts have been removed (vandalism?), but I also see improvement is needed on the original. I'll see if I can restore the lost parts, and look into your concerns. Jeronimo 19:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put back the fairly important "History" section which was deleted in one of the waves of vandalism that struck the article. It should address at least some of the concerns expressed above. Jeronimo 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It does indeed, thanks a lot! Haukur 19:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC: not a single inline citation, short stubby sections, one-sentence paragraphs.  Still needs attention.  Sandy 22:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns are lack of inline citations (1c), structure (4) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell 16:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remove. I'm sorry because this is one of the oldest FA, but it does not correspond to the current criteria of FA. No inline citations. Short lead. Very poor references (only two).--Yannismarou 11:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove per above. Punctured Bicycle 12:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove per above. LuciferMorgan 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove Must be referenced, short and stubby. Sandy 12:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove. Stubby paragraphs and sections, indifferent prose in places, lacking in comprehensiveness. Tony 16:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Remove per above.--Dark Kubrick 03:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)