# Talk:LG Mobile World Cup

This review is transcluded from Talk:LG Mobile World Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


### Well written
(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 The article could use an independent copy edit. In general it is good, but I feel there are some wordy sections that can be confusing to the reader. The last sentence in the section "Records" in particular took me a few times to understand exactly what was being talked about.
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
 The lead section presents some material which is not present in the article itself. This should generally be avoided. The lead section should be, in essence, a summary. In fact, a related matter is that the "Format" section immediately jumps into what happens during the competition instead of providing context to the reader. That section should address what the competition is (and perhaps the section should be renamed). This would provide the missing content which is referenced in the lead, "in which participants competed using their texting speed and accuracy". Furthermore, by adding this content to the "Format" section, the references can be moved from the lead to the content sections. In general, the lead should either be fully referenced or not referenced at all (it's ok, and not a bad idea, to have an unreferenced lead section so long as all of the content in the lead is addressed again and referenced appropriately in the summary &endash; again, the lead is intended to be a summary, so there should be no new content anyway).


### Factually written and verifiable
(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 OK
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
 I would like to see a reference for the "thirteen countries" fact, which is stated twice but neither time is given a reference. The reference should be provided when it is discussed in the "format" section.
 Done NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(c) it contains no original research
 No original research detected


### Broad in its coverage
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 I think the results could be presented better. The reader is left with the following questions:
What was the characters per second of other participants?
How did the results compare to past competitions?
How did other countries compare beyond the top three? How close were the second and third place to first?
How did accuracy play into the competition? Only speeds are discussed in the article, except in the lead where a comment about accuracy is made.
Is this really all there is to say about the competition? Were there any controversies? What about related competitions? Is this the first of its kind on a global scale? If so, how did it compare to expectations? Were there any critical reviews or opinions of the competition? These are all kinds of questions that could add significant content to the article. Honestly, size is not a valid metric for GA, but it's just a gut feeling that some of this content can exist but is missing. Feel free to say "no it doesn't exist" though. I'm just trying to point out things which might be issues.
I'll look into it. (expectations, critical reviews).  I haven't been able to find any.  I did however find what phones they used, and a couple other pieces of information I'll use.  And it is the first international competition for texting: I'll add that. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 Good


### Neutral
it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 In general, it is OK. I am worried about the section "Format" which lists the 13 countries but the order seems to unfairly treat the United States by placing them first. Is there a particular reason for this order of countries? I would prefer either the official ordering or alphabetical order to treat all countries equally.
 Done NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


### Stable
it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 OK


### Illustrated, if possible
(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 Valid fair use claim; non-free image is low resolution.
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
 Appropriate and captioned correctly. Missing alt text. This is not a GA concern, but it will be a concern if this is brought to WP:FAC
 Done anyways. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


### General comments
Honestly, I think this GA nomination was a bit premature, but it's a decent article. I'm totally willing to work with it during the review to get it to pass, but it will need a little work first. In particular, I think some commentary is missing on reviews of the competition, whether or not it will continue in the future, how it compared to past competitions, etc. The above sections go into this in a bit more detail. Beyond the content issue, nothing stands out at me as a major blocker.


### Overall
 On hold while the above concerns are addressed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

 After doing some research, I am satisfied that this covers the main topics, despite its length. As length is not a requirement for GA status, I am willing to pass this as a GA. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on LG Mobile World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100115155025/http://www.myfoxdetroit.com:80/dpp/morning_by_day/thursday/texting-pays-off-at-lg-mobile-world-cup to http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/morning_by_day/thursday/texting-pays-off-at-lg-mobile-world-cup
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on LG Mobile World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320111104/http://www.lgmobileworldcup.com/gateway.jsp to http://www.lgmobileworldcup.com/gateway.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)