# Talk:Tuvalu at the 2020 Summer Olympics

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tuvalu at the 2020 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 15:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


### Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 16, 2021, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:  Good
2. Verifiable?:  Good
3. Broad in coverage?:  Not Pass
4. Neutral point of view?:  Good
5. Stable?:  Pass
6. Images?:  Pass
The article is very well-written. But the topic does not have a broad coverage; it is a short article

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Kpddg (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Kpddg, the article in its current state is about as comprehensive as it could be, and around the same size as the GA Tuvalu at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Obviously, Tuvalu's Olympic performance is unlikely to get much coverage, and the article can only be as large as the amount of information and coverage available. AryKun (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Exactly @AryKun. This article cannot be expanded further. Though it is very well-written, it is very short as well. According to me, it is nice but shouldn't go to 'good article' level. However, if you feel otherwise, please do ask another editor to review this. Thank You. Kpddg (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Article has been renominated. Open for another - experienced - reviewer to take a second look --Whiteguru (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Rather than being renominated, I have reopened this original review for a second opinion from someone fully familiar with the GA criteria and how to apply them—please take a full look at the article and do a complete new review of it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


### Second review for reopened nomination
I'll take a look as a second opinion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

the Games were → "the event was"
Done.
The nation's participation → "Tuvalu's participation"
Rephrased to "Their participation": I'm trying to avoid repeating Tuvalu too much.
a Polynesian island country — try to avoid linking two adjacent words
Reworded.
Tuvalu received a universality slot — whats that?
Added gloss.
It chose to send 22 year-old Karalo Maibuca and 18 year-old Matie Stanley — this was already mentioned in the previous Background section.
I think repeating a bit is okay, especially sine this helps elaborate on how they competed despite not qualifying.
Karalo Maibuca represented — remove the first name
Done.
in the men's 100 metres — this has also been mentioned before
Removed.
Various thing in the "Key", such as: 'Note', 'Q', 'q', 'N/A', 'Bye', are never used in the table or anywhere. Why do we need to define them?
Removed.
I know its too early, but anything to say about Aftermath?
Nothing about this, and Tuvalu's Olympic participation seems unlikely to have much of an aftermath.
Ref#14 and #15 are duplicate: they redirect to the same web-page.
Merged refs.
"www.worldathletics.org" v. just "worldathletics.org" — consistency needed
Changed both to worldathletics.org
"Olympic.org" v. just "Olympics" — consistency needed
Changed both to Olympic.org
Suggesting to archive all the references, preferably using this tool.
Images look fine and are appropriately licenced.
@AryKun – Just a few comments, then this may be good to go. Thanks for your work here to save a good topic! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that most of the changes are made. Happy to promote this as a GA! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)