Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the ((done)) tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include((cleanup)), ((POV)), ((unreferenced)) or large numbers of ((citation needed)), ((clarify)), or similar tags. (See also ((QF-tags))). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

General

• I know this has been waiting a long time, but this isn't a suitable GA at the present moment. Here's a series of things that caused me to not want the article to go on hold, and fail right out.

Minor:

1. WP:BOLDAVOID in lede
2. retail stores were newly opened - opened for the event, newly is present tense.
3. What's a "chinese sturgeon"?
4. .[31][32][33][34] - WP:CITEKILL.
5. Why are quotes in italics?
6. It was reported that 109 nations - by whom? There's clearly 110 from the full list below, which was overkill too.

Major:

1. Most of the info in the lede should be in the body.
2. Random external links (suitable for WP:LINKROT) in the results section
3. No commentary on the medals/results
4. Very short sections such as bidding, marketing and venues need expansion
5. The WP:WEIGHT seems massively off. Why are we drawing attention to one venue over others, or one record being beaten?
6. The list of venues seems a bit long, needs signifcant commentary as to what's going on/where it's sourced to.
7. Article is need of a copyedit, as some things make zero sense when read.

GA Review

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm sorry for failing this one so quickly, but there just isn't enough here (or even close to) for me to believe this will meet the WP:BROAD criteria. I've left some comments above, but this would need a lot more for it to have a successful nomination in the future. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]