# Talk:Open water swimming at the 2025 World Aquatics Championships – Women's 10 km

This review is transcluded from Talk:Open water swimming at the 2025 World Aquatics Championships – Women's 10 km/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 14:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Canary757 (talk · contribs) 18:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi, review to come. Canary757 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

ref check 1 3 5 6 7 9 13 14 15 16 all good.
ref 8 (two postponements) Did Taddeucci say that or was it Johnson?
Canary757 (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Earwig copyvio check is fine. Two 30% hits due to attributed quotes. Page is stable and written neutrally. No original research present. Canary757 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Let me know if you have any further issues with any of the other criteria. Thanks so much for reviewing :) IAWW (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Great catch, it appears Johnson said it. I fixed the attribution. IAWW (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi, just a couple of minor things to consider.
By the end of lap four, the lead group had rejoined the chasing group I think as the lead group is the subject here that they don't do the rejoining. It could be the lead group was caught by the chasing group or that the lead group had been rejoined by the chasing group.
Johnson increased her pace as the finish approached, and she drew five other swimmers with her to form another leading group. I think to 'form a new leading group' would work better here - to emphasize that there was only one leading group at a time.
Otherwise, article is well-written, broad but focused, no images to assess and passes all GA criteria.
Canary757 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you @Canary757. I agree with both your points and fixed both. Apologies if the race review prose is a bit awkward in places. It can be a little challenging to form a well-worded narrative without drawing implications not present in the sparse sourcing. IAWW (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for making some changes - looks good to go for a GA pass. In addition to the above, sources are reliable and verifiable, MOS fine. Canary757 (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)