# Talk:Swimming at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Men's 4 × 100 metre medley relay

This review is transcluded from Talk:Swimming at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Men's 4 x 100 metre medley relay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I plan on reviewing this article in the near future, most likely tomorrow. Cheers, CP 03:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, a day late but here we go...
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Some comments:

I'm a little uncertain as to whether the infobox picture qualifies for fair use, but I think it's passable given that it's a historical moment that cannot be repeated. It has no effect on a GA pass, but if you're planning on taking this to FA, I could understand how someone might have a different opinion on it than me. Just a heads up!
Any suggestions how to improve the fair-use rationale? Nergaal (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
On the subject of images, however, your two images should have alt text, per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images
added. Nergaal (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Specific reference #2 needs to be properly formatted, preferably with a citation template - right now it's bare URL
fixed. Nergaal (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The external link should also be given a name - it doesn't have to be as detailed as the rest of the references, but it can't be just a bare URL
fixed. Nergaal (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Second lead paragraph: "The United States, the winner of all previous events of this event, were boycotting the games in response to the Soviet war in Afghanistan." Singular/plural confusion here... it either needs to be "The United States, the winners of all previous events of this event, were..." or "The United States, the winner of all previous events of this event, was..." Also, while I'm on it, "events of this event" is troublesome prose and needs to be changed... perhaps "incarnations of this event"? This happens later too: "Australia was regarded as a chance for a medal, but were not seen as the main threats," Maybe  "Australia was regarded as a chance for a medal, but the squad was not seen..."
Changed all the instances to plural. Nergaal (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
End of the first paragraph under preview "This, corroborated with the boycott of the silver and bronze medallists from  the previous edition, West Germany (who won the silver medal also at the World Championships), and respectively Canada, the field had opened up the event." This sentence doesn't make any sense in its current form. If you take out the stuff between the commas it would read ""This the field had opened up the event."
fixed. Nergaal (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Second paragraph under preview "while their weakest swimmer, the breaststroker (Peter Berggren)", without a cite or an explanation, this seems like a POV statement - yes, he placed ninth in one event, but it's a very selective comparison to the other swimmers. Maybe "least experienced" or "lowest ranked" would be better... something that can more objectively measured
switched for lowest ranked. Nergaal (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a couple of places where the prose is somewhat unencyclopedic eg. "paled in comparison" could be replaced with something more factual or objective; it's not really an appropriate expression for an encyclopedia... maybe "did not appear to match up their opponents"
fixed this, but are there any other instances of colloquial language? Nergaal (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Under "heats": "In the morning heats when Sweden was disqualified in the first heat, as Australia and the Soviet Union swam in the second heat." This is a fragment.
How is it now? Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
First pragraph, "final": "Tonelli named the foursome as the Quietly Confident Quartet, and they exhibited a quiet confidence as they lined up for the race. Whereas most of the other teams were "psyching up" in the marshalling area, the Australians were remaining light-hearted, confident that they could perform in the final." The title of their group can't be changed, but you should to "thesaurize" and use different words for the second time that "quiet" and "confident" come up to avoid making the prose too repetitive
switched the first two. Nergaal (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about this one, but is "bodylength" used as one word? I've never seen it like that before.
separated it into two. Nergaal (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
In terms of completeness, I really feel like there is something missing at the end. After I hit the end, I was expect there to be a section of follow up, but ends really abruptly. Surely their victory had some sort of impact. How was it received at home? How did their victory figure in to the medal count? What were the ramifications for the other teams? It's not that all these questions need answering, or even any of them in particular, but this event did not take place in a vacuum. At the very least, there should be some information on what the reaction was in the home country. After all, you have "Preview" and "Competition" sections... shouldn't there be a third for the aftereffects?
I have added an aftermath section. Is it missing anything? Nergaal (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that this article needs some significant work before it can be classified as a GA, but I will give the benefit of the doubt and put the article on hold for one week to allow for these changes to be made. I'm always open to discussion on any of them items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Cheers, CP 23:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice work so far, I fixed one or two minor things. I'll review it again a little later for colloquial, but I think everything's been changed now. Cheers, CP 17:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, looks like all my points have been addressed, so I'll take a look at it now. Cheers, CP 18:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that's much better! I feel like I have a sense of completeness after reading the aftermath section, excellent. I think that this has definitely met the Good Article criteria, and thus I will be promoting it as such, so well done and thank you for your hard work. Cheers, CP 18:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The Quietly Confident Quartet article suggests that particular quartet existed only for one event, namely Swimming at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Men's 4 x 100 metre medley relay. If it was a group that competed in multiple competitions over multiple years, it would merit a separate article. But splitting the material into two separate articles does not seem convenient for readers, and is arguably a WP:POV fork. What would be lost by merging them, (apart from a "featured article" star)? jnestorius(talk) 17:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The information in Quietly Confident Quartet would be too in depth, and too focused on one nation to be merged into the main article. I view it as being similar to having articles for various sports teams that relate to a single season. If you want more views on this it might be an it up at WT:OLY as I doubt many people will watch this page - Basement12 (T.C) 09:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I would not merge the details that would make the parent article lopsided. They would not be deleted, since they are already covered anyway in related articles which are (or should be) linked to it. I would break it down thus:

jnestorius(talk) 10:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I think merging it back in would WP:UNDUE. --LauraHale (talk)
Oppose I think this article is written from a different perspective and with a different focus than would be appropriate in the event article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)  14:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
How is "from a different perspective and with a different focus" not a POV fork? Will there be another article about the second-place team? jnestorius(talk) 18:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)