Wikipedia:Featured article review/Australia at the Winter Olympics/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 23:17, 26 August 2009.

Review commentary

 * Notified WikiProject Australian sports, WikiProject Olympics, and Andjam.

This was promoted to FA way back in April 2006. It's not in terrible shape now, but there are a few issues that stick out when comparing the article to modern FA standards:
 * 1a: Some copy-editing would be beneficial. At a glance, I see that six of the first seven paragraphs begin with Australia, making for too much repetition. Later, I see this awkward sentence: "Steven Bradbury and Alisa Camplin's triumphs were celebrated by Australia Post issuing postage stamps of them, which followed on from them issuing stamps of Australian gold medallists at the 2000 Sydney Olympics." Overall, the prose is fixable with a little work.
 * 1c: Two cite tags and a couple uncited paragraphs. Formatting of the existing online references needs improvement. The group of athlete profiles at the bottom is formatted well, providing a good example for the rest.
 * 3: Three fair-use images with questionable rationales.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 14:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes http://www.glenstephens.com/linnsMarch11-02.html reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I started work on this pre-emptorily and will continue  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I supsect the article is not comprehensive; thw history starts with the first athelete without any info about political campaigns,  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Expanding  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you mean by political campaigns please? Andjam (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I should have said political support and infrastructure.


 * 'Propose to remove the three fair use images. They easily fail FUC, although the original author has reverted removals of it in the past.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do. Although fair-use can be a touchy subject, the guidelines were obviously interpreted more loosely in the years before I joined the project. Those photos would never make it through a modern FAC.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The person who I reverted was a serial remover of fair use images. I didn't trust her/his judgement. I trust YellowMonkey and know he is a positive contributor, even if I'm sad to see the images go. I don't see what images have to do with featured status or vice versa - if an image is not legal, then it doesn't matter if it's a stub or featured, and whether an article has images or not doesn't affect whether an article is featured or not (though not having an image would affect whether it goes on the front page). Andjam (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the reality is that people don't really worry about FU violations on a consistent basis unless they are at FAC/FAR, but there they will complain. Also, images are not required for a TFA so it can still have its day in the sun.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 00:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose to remove/cut down not very serious info about Roy and HG; it is a comedy show to get more TV ratings, not a means of proving support to athletes, unlike eg, the AIS, training facilities and scholarships, support staff and all that. In 40 years time people will still write about Camplin and Bradbury in sports history books but not a comedy show.... Also I think the stamp thing should be pruned. It is routine for all gold medallists and a generalised comment should suffice per undue. I don't think the details about the technical production is necessary  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree here as well; the stamp paragraphs are particularly excessive. I wonder if they were included as a way to get the images in. Either way, it's too much trivial detail and it flows poorly with the rest of the section.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 23:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed and pruned per discussion  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Are you still performing copyediting? Because the "History" and, in a lesser extent, the "Public support" sections are huge! On a related note, there are too many one-sentence paragraphs. Parutakupiu (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Article might need to be restructured. 29kb of prose at the moment.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed the Stephens not RS. Expanded and everything referenced. However, I am not happy with the structure which doesn't feel very natural and could do with ideas on a more efficent manner and anything that needs to be pruned. Information on the TV rights isn't needed because that is between teh TV company and the IOC, not the AOC. Also added a section on the budget.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sport by sport breakdown obviously means that there is overlap with the history, and the public support thing sometimes overlaps with history, but maybe they should just be combined to show the evolution of the administrative attitudes  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple of comments:
 * I don't think the odd one-sentence paragraph is a catastrophic issue. There are times when there's only one sentence on an issue/time period and the article would be worse with the two alternatives: removing it or incorporating it into another paragraph about something else just for the sake of avoiding one sentence paragraphs.
 * Some minor c/edit suggestioons:-
 * In 1952, one staff member was present for the first time; Robert "George" Chisholm was the first manager of an Australian Winter Olympic team - "a staff member"?
 * In contrast to the large 1960 team, the teams in subsequent Olympics were scaled back and were the smallest since 1936 - When comparing team sizes, I don't think "subsequent" is specific enough to describe one end of the comparison to be honest. The years which were "the smallest since 36" should be explicitly listed in my opinion.
 * Australia had more officials present than athletes, five to three. - is that a ratio, or exact totals?
 * It was only the second time that an Australian had placed in the top 10.[22] It remained Australia's best result until 1994.[5] - could probably become one sentence.
 * His five skiing compatriots had a much more unproductive time - this sounded weird when I read it, maybe "much less productive" would be a more regular expression to use?
 * The 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, France was viewed as the potential start of a new era in Australian winter sports, with hopes that a maiden medal would result.[29] - that doesn't need to be a separate sentence from the next para, I dont think.
 * It was a successful campaign for the largest team that Australia had sent apart from 1960—27 athletes—an unprecedented five top 10 finishes were recorded - if you take out the mock-parenthesis-dashes the sentence doesn't read fluently.
 * In 2006, Australia sent 40 athletes to compete in 10 sports, a record number of competitors and events. For the first time, Australian officials explicitly set a goal of winning a medal.[50] - same as 1992.
 * Was 1992 an explicit goal, as opposed to a hope? Andjam (talk) 03:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To be continued. Daniel (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I aven't done a basic copyedit until the content is all in the right place so you needn't bother with that till then


 * Toolbox - One link is allegedly redirecting, but is not. Help? Disambigs; one is on the template, giving three types of horseracing, and not the article, so I am not sure....Alt fixed except the flag which is in a nest of infoboxes. Not sure how recursion works here....help?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The link was indeed redirecting, and I fixed it by appending a "/"; this is a common problem with links ending in a domain or directory name. The disambigs need to be fixed in the template; can someone else do that? I fixed the flag by adding " " as per WP:ALT , but there were several more alt text problems that I also had to fix, including the gold, silver, and bronze medal images, and some rewording of the lead image's alt text. Eubulides (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is what I did to fix the dab; hope that's OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, not quite my area, but a few things that I can see.

1) The history section seems generally good to me, but a few parts of it read like "X person managed the team until Y year, and then Z took over", which makes me wonder if another source or two wouldn't yield a bit more information about the interim.

2) There's nothing about Janine Shepherd in the article; since to my knowledge she was seen as an early real medal chance before her accident, that probably warrants changing.


 * I googled this and was unable to find any concrete evidence of this except weasel words, probably propagated by her own PR people. No indication of any high world rankings and so forth....There was nothing in the book by the AOC's official historian either. There are lots of sites saying that she was a "champion athlete" but not specifying any wins or medals in anything at all.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 08:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3) "Public support" seems like a bit of a strange section as is. Perhaps this could be broken up into an "administration/government assistance" section (also including things like the relevant sport governing bodies; also maybe something about any AIS support) and a "public support" section?


 * Integrated the administrative history (was in public support) into the competition history as it can't work otherwise. Split the funding, AIS type stuff into a separate section, and community based stuff into a third.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

4) Perhaps a section about media coverage might be warranted?


 * Ideally yes but I'm not sure where to get a history of TV coverage of the Olympics, I don't know of any books that keep a record of this, of TV rights bidding or how many media went in the early years (probably 0). Gordon is the commissioned historian of the AOC and doesn't have it. Also the TV rights are between the IOC and Channel 7 and have nothing to do with the govt or the AOC, so it we could skip it  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

5) I think the "results" section looks strange where it is if it's just a table. I think at least a prose section could well be written there to complement the table; otherwise I'd suggest moving it to the bottom of the article.

6) I'd get rid of the "winter sport in Australia" section entirely; I'd stick the first half of it in the lead, and the second half of it (about the newish construction of specialist courses and such) in with a section about administration and support and such
 * Done (variation thereof)  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

7) I think "overview by sport" is in a strange spot at the moment. The content looks good to me at a glance, but I think I'd stick it right under "history"; it's fairly fundamental information.

8) I think the structure of the paralympics section reads a bit funny; I wonder if this could do with a copyedit. Rebecca (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a few phrases that are more poetic than prose-like, such as "their olympic dream" and "snuffed out his chances". Andjam (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any more content issues, excluding the ordering of the structures. Referencing is all done. If not, copyediting and we should be done hopefully ....  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 04:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done copyediting  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm giving it a quick copy-edit pass to back up the great expansion and cleanup work here, and expect to wrap it up tomorrow. Compared to when the FAR started, every aspect has been strengthened.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 00:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All done with the copy-edit, though please note that I usually do lighter work than someone like Tony would expect.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 00:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be possible to keep, with a bit of effort. The prose isn't too bad, but I see little glitches here and there, and they will need to be fixed.
 * "Australia totalled only 10 goals in reply."
 * Not sure what you're getting at.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 04:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "in the 500 and 1000 metres speed skating"—should that be "500- and 1000-metre skating"? Unsure.
 * According to the official captions and all that, no  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 04:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Loose linking practice: opening sentence is "Australia first competed in the Winter Olympic Games in 1936 in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, and has participated in every games since then, with the exception of the 1948 Games in St. Moritz." Why not section-link to the Sport or Culture section of "Australia"; or perhaps there's a separate daughter article. WP:LINK says to focus links where possible. Why is there a deceptive pipe to "1936", when the secret lies just before it? I'd conflate to " 1936 Winter Olympic Games" . The WO is linked to from that article, anyway. Tony   (talk)  11:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! '') paid editing=POV 02:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"The funding of the OWIA by the AOC varies by year, but hovers between AUD500,000 and 1,000,000, with a higher budget in the years immediately before an Olympics. Through the Australian Sports Commission, the federal government also sponsors OWIA, contributing more than half a million dollars a year. In 2009, the OWIA lobbied the government for an increase in its annual budget from AUD2.1m to AUD29.4m, which is still a fraction of the AUD132m that Canada—the host of the 2010 Olympics—is spending. Australia is aiming to win two medals in 2010. [this sentence is an abrupt break from the funding issue] In contrast, the current funding for the Summer Olympics team is AUD128m per annum and the AOC has asked for an increase of AUD108m annually. [the 'in contrast' bit sounds like a contrast to Australia's medal goal]". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've finished the content and referencing. If anyone wants anything else, then I'm waiting  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll go through and iron out prose and MOS issues. Looks good for the most part. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm copy-editing the article. Mostly good stuff, but there is a bit of an organization issue in the last paragraph of Infrastructure and training. Here's the relevant passage:
 * Also, I'm not sure how the Public participation and support for winter sports in Australia section is relevant to this article. Indeed the only Olympic mention is that regarding the Summer Olympic medallists. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't like it you can move it off, I don't mind. The public culture affects the number of people going through the ranks up to serious competition.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "These are the only times that Australia has competed in a team sport." I seriously doubt that, and that's probably not what you meant either. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean a sport where they fight/manipulate for a ball/puck/ etc tweaked  YellowMonkey  ( cricket photo poll! ) paid editing=POV 06:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Great work by YellowMonkey to bring this up to standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – YM did a great job rebuilding the article from scratch to meet modern FA criteria. I can't believe this is the same article I nominated.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 15:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dabomb87 and my comments above. Daniel (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Great job. Rebecca (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. - per Dabomb87.  Aaroncrick  (talk ) 15:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good improvements. Cirt (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.