Jump to content

Talk:2019 World Athletics Championships – Women's marathon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 World Athletics Championships – Women's marathon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 12:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


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):
    Checked all results above 4% match on Earwig's Copyvio tool - no concerns.
  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:

Comments

[edit]

I'm happy to discuss or be challenged on any of my comments.

  • Suggest using IA bot or a similar tool to prevent WP:LINKROT
  • Consider adding a short description (WP:SHORTDESC) if a useful one is possible. It looks like some other GAs on similar topics don't have one.
  • Lead / Preview: "six laps of a 7-kilometre (4.3 mi) floodlit course" doesn't quite make the marathon distance. I suggest either confirming the "exact" route distance or adding in a qualifier along the lines of "approximately"
  • Preview: "considered the favourites" - consider adding "to win." I'm not sure how widely understood favourite in the betting sense is, but there must be a small possibility of confusion with favourite.
  • Preview: "Entrants highlighted from other countries.." - true, but the highlight is in a particular IAAF article. Could perhaps be reworded as something like "Other competitors included Lonah Salpeter of Israel [something about Euro 10,000] and Helalia Johannes of Namibia [something about Commonwealth title]."
  • Summary: "The race was officially scheduled to start at 23:59 local time.." - consider reword to show that it did start at that (scheduled) time, which I don't think is explicit at the moment. (On the other hand, there is nothing that says it did not start at that time.)
  • Source 1 (IAAF qualifying) Checked (Note: For some reason the link on the article page didn't work for me - I found the article via Google, and the link seems to be as per citation)
  • Source 2 (IAAF qualifying system) Checked
  • Source 3 (Kelly) Checked
  • Source 4 (Rehmat) Checked
  • Source 5 (Bloom) Checked
  • Source 6 (Cacciola) Checked
  • Source 7 (Rowbottom) Checked(Note: IAAF changed its name to World Athletics after the Doha event)
  • Source 8 (British Athletics) Checked
  • Source 9 (Gabelić) Checked
  • Source 10 (IAAF records) - additional citation needed for "not expected that any records would be set" Checked
  • Source 11 (IAAF) Checked
  • Source 12 (Al Jazeera) Checked
  • Source 13 (Keating) Checked
  • Source 14 (Chowdhury) Checked
  • Source 15 (Tress) Checked
  • Source 16 (Bloom 2) Checked
  • Source 17 (IAAF - 50km) Checked
  • Source 18 (IAAF Results) Checked

Harrias Thanks for your work on this interesting article. I've made a few suggestions, and am always happy to engage in discussion. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Cheers for the review. I think I've wrapped up these points now; any further input would be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 13:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Thanks for your responses. I'm happy to pass this for GA. I'd still be in favour of running IA bot or another archiving tool, but that's not a necessity. I made a couple of further minor changes to the preview section but would have no objections to these being reverted or amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]