# Talk:Marshall Islands at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Marshall Islands at the 2016 Summer Olympics. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nbcolympics.com/countries/country%3Dmhl/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131520300100/http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=805 to http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=805
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) 15:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marshall Islands at the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 22:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
However, the Marshall Islands consider The Marshall Islands, however, failed or The delegation, however, failed
 Done --Cameron11598 (Talk)  00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
under Spain's influence a direct Wikilink to the Spanish East Indies would probably be better here than piping.
I'm not sure I agree, it would then change the entire meaning of the sentence. It goes from implying Spanish control/influince to a geographical location.  --Cameron11598 (Talk)  00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there something I am missing here? The main Marshall Islands article claimed that it was a formal part of the Spanish East Indies since the 16th century. To me this looks like a legal jurisdiction and it seems better just to state it plainly than to allude to something like influence. I'm also not an expert here, so am more than open to listening to your views on this. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
during World War II, and were...  breaking up this sentence would help the article flow better
 Done --Cameron11598 (Talk)  00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The addition of the Marshall Islands brought the total number of IOC-recognized National Olympic Committees to 203 Its unclear to me if 203 is the current number or if it was the number at the time they were recognized. Tweaking the wording would provide clarity to the reader.
 Done --Cameron11598 (Talk)  00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
two athletes, one male and one female for concision you can just say one male and one female
 Done--Cameron11598 (Talk)  00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
send two swimmers, one male and one female concision, see above.
 Done--Cameron11598 (Talk)  00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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: 
All sources check out and have been verified
C. It contains no original research: 
Did a second round through the sources, and source 18 doesn't appear to mention the results from the snatch and the clean & jerk. Just the total. The number add up, but where are you getting them from? TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwig is picking up some copying on the first sentence, but this is located here regarding Russia at the Olympics, and it appears to be a Wikipedia mirror. Nothing you have to fix, just noting it for the review. Otherwise, nothing else came up in Earwig, and I couldn't find any close paraphrasing or copying when doing spot checks.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Very good. Very close to meeting all of the criteria. Just a few changes to the prose and you should be good to go. I'll likely have a second go over it for any additional stylistic things and to see if I missed anything, but I don't see any major issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni:  Done with the one exception noted above. --Cameron11598 (Talk)  00:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Cameron, see my responses above. The prose changes you made look fine. I have a question on sourcing noted in 2c. Overall everything looks good, and if you can address those two comments it'll pass. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Cameron, just going through my old contributions to see if I had anything outstanding and I remembered this. Not a big deal if you are busy IRL since you haven't bene on in a week. Just ping me whenever you are back on or have addressed the issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Cameron, are you still working on this or would you prefer I close the review out? TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: I am! I just am having finding the source for that information I'm probably just going to change it to reflect the total score. --Cameron11598 (Talk)  17:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni:  Done Found a source! --Cameron11598 (Talk)  17:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Cameron, looks good on the results for the competitions, but I didn't see the ranks in the source. I think mentioning her overall rank would be acceptable here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni:  Done --Cameron11598 (Talk)  20:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Cameron, I've passed it. Good job! TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)