# Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Women's 100-metre freestyle

In the lede, it mentions "Since an Olympic size swimming pool is 50 metres long, this race consisted of two lengths of the pool." Well obviously. This is neither extraordinary nor of due weight. I am not here to want to step on toes but why it is even necessary to add this in? Is this Olympics special where this arrangement is unusual? why would anyone expect differently? I wish to point out Wikipedia policy of Manual of Style applies where the lead is meant to summarize the most important and notable aspects of the body and event, and be of due weight[1]. And most readers already know or can easily infer that 100m race equals to two lengths of a 50m Olympic standard pool. Such an explanation might better belong in a general article like Freestyle swimming or Summer Olympics, but not in an event-specific article. That sentence just ends up diluting the focus of the lede with filler and arguably redundant lesser info that doesn't summarize the body best. IP49XX (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @IP49XX, I did this in the interests of Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, which says "Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience". I note this text has been in over 20 articles that have passed GA review, and no one has commented negatively on it. Additionally, at this review, the reviewer indicated that they did not already know this. IAWW (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Note the only policy you linked says "Significant information should not appear in the lead, apart from basic facts". I would argue this is a "basic fact". If you could give specific policy that the inclusion of this content violates, I would happily change my mind. Otherwise, lets bring this straight to WP:3O this time. IAWW (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world If I had to guess, I say the guy who reviewed them as good articles doesn't pay attention to heaps of swimming event articles as exactly zero of the thousands of other swimming race articles (that you don't edit) mention this and for good reason - it's not important. Regardless as one other veteran editor told me -  Text doesn't necessarily have to be an explicit violation of policy to be removed. That it's not really helpful to an encyclopedic article about the event would be enough to argue for its removal. .... Basically they "agree with me that it's kinda silly since we don't do that kind of basic aside in the lede for any other sporting event'". They are an experienced mod in Teahouse and we can consider them a qualifed unofficial third opinion already.[2] Also I actually do read hundreds of sports articles monthly, mostly swimming and cycling, and why I am familiar and can too  easily spot how unusual it is to state the unimportant and overly obvious filler info that is blatantly silly to add to the article. The info is neither unprecedented or notable enough that it needs this much due weight. And if you don't agree with me nor the other experienced editor, I am more than happy for you to go ahead and do WP:30. IP49XX (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Also the lede shoul be concise and focused on key outcomes, and should tell readers what happened and who won. Adding Technical details like pool length and lap count clutters it. And Olympic pools are always 50 metres. It's unnecessary to state this unless the article itself is about pool specs or is written for absolute beginners. And even if there's some extraordinary reason like a race for the first time was done in a non standard pool or there was confusion, the addition of the pool length and lap count is better to be mentioned further down the article and not in the lede where readers want to know what the race is and who won, and not the pool length or lap count. IP49XX (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi @IP49XX, it wasn't just one guy who reviewed them all as good articles. Almost every swimming event article is a stub. If you consider the "veteran editor" you quote as a third opinion, why not the other editor who disagrees and has over 100x the amount of edits? IAWW (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
If a GA reviewer found the pool length useful, that's great but that doesn't mean it belongs to the lede. A quick mention in the body or a short explanatory note elsewhere, serves clarity without compromising the focus of the lede from the most important newsworthy facts, And a Ga reviewer doesn't set a permanent precedent for style. Their role is check for general quality but just because a detail was accepted, it doesn't mean it's the best practise for every single article, Are you seriously willing to rewrite every single 200m swimming races and in the first sentences in the lede - write the pool length and lap count? It may be informative to some but it's not lead-worthy unless there's something unusual happened that it's necessary to mention it.IP49XX (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I do genuinely think that would be an improvement per the policy I previously stated and the evidence that multiple people did not already know this. I'm happy to defer to a Wikipedia:Third opinion, are you happy to do the same? If not, then I think Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be the appropriate avenue. IAWW (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@It is a wonderful world Let's be clear, do not confuse article improvement with lead bloat. If an article is a stub, that's even more reason to improve their structure and not dilute and weaken the lede to compensate. AND GA review does not = style precedent. It's generally not a good idea to put it in the lede. My reason is - lede must be sharp and focused on the event's outcome. Explaining stanndard pool dimensions despite it's nothing extraordinary, weakens that focus. Basic context like lap count or pool length absolutely has value - but it belongs in the body, where it informs without distracting. If you still disagree, feel free to open an RfC or request a Third Opinion on what makes a quality Lede per WP:MOS for these articles. IP49XX (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
That's fine, I think it belongs in the lead because it's such a basic fact, which makes the information of strong interest to the lead per the policy stated above. I also don't see where else it would fit in the article. I'm happy to defer to 3O no matter what they think. IAWW (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok. One last thing - out of curiosity, how do you honestly feel about this analogy and do you understand emotionally why it's off? "Merely adding in lede of a race that the pool length is 50m and 2 laps must be done, is bit like the lede of a Fina game explaining the soccer game was played on grass" - technically that's true, but is obvious, expected and distracting and is why we don't add such background info in. If you think there's nothing in saying basic background info like a soccer field is grass and or they needed how many players or rest durationsis how long and other background details that's better for an article ficusing on these things - and don't think it's kinda silly then I guess it's no point continuing our discussion and sadly request you to request third opinion, and if u are still unhappy with that outcome - do RfC later on. Regardless you take care of yourself buddy. IP49XX (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I have put a request at third opinion. I will defer to 3O no matter what they think. Regarding the analogy, I agree, it would be impossible to list every fact about everything! However, in this case, I think it's reasonable to assume a decent portion of readers will not be able to infer how many laps the race consists of based on the distance. The reason I think this is because of the GA reviewer who did not know this, and the person at the village pump who did not know this. IAWW (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Responding from WP:3O .  For many sports, I think there are too many technical aspects to list in a short lead/lede.  The laps in a pool are a math function based on the length of the pool and the event being raced.  I do not think the number of laps is relevant because most events are listed by the final distance.  For instance, 100m, 330y, 800m, 1 mile on the track.  Explanations of how to get to that distance might be necessary in the body of the article for people who do not know anything about the event.  Relay races are described by length of leg, 4x100m, 4x400m. Indoors, the 4x400m is 2 laps per runner (200m track).  It's never called the 4x2 laps.  Only the legs and distance.  A medley race might warrant a description in the lede because there are multiple events or multiple distances. Sprint medley relay (SMR in track) might be 400m, 200m, 200m, 800m.  In swim, I believe there is a 400m individual medley, which transitions from fly to back to breast to free.  Is there a different Olympic medal for short- versus long-course?  Then I could see calling the race short-course (in 25m pool) to differentiate it from the long-course event.  I tried looking...not conclusive if there was a separate event in any Olympic competition.
I appreciate the desire for clarity.  I looked at an event like Olympic shot put. The weight standard is not listed in the lead even though it has not changed since the first modern Olympic games. Material and number of hands used are not in the lead either.
I think the lead should contain some technical information for clarity, if it significantly differentiates the article from a similar (or similarly named) topic. I don't think describing the number of laps are that type of technical differentiation.
If you'll forgive an non-sport analogy, scoring a Blackjack can be done in a number of ways. I would not expect the lead of the article to explain (or, horror, list) the permutations.  At some point, it's just too much detail in the summary.
Hope this helps. Just Al (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
@Just Al Thank you for your thoughtful and clear response. I really appreciate the time you took, and I hope this helps bring our discussion to a solution even if we don't all agree.
IAWW’s points also got me reflecting more on how one better explains the point of MOS to others. I ended up making a user essay on that topic on my name page - [3] It's a rough first draft and may need improvements, but you're both welcome to take a look or share it if you find it useful. Thanks again for your insight and constructive input. IP49XX (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
@Just Al Thanks for your input. I'll leave the matter here then. IAWW (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)