# Talk:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2016 Summer Olympics

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saint Kitts and Nevis 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) 21:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'll do this review over the next week. Committing to it now so I remember to do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Williams narrowly missed qualifying for the 100 m  the word narrowly isn't needed (conciscion, also possibly neutrality)
Jason Rogers, one of the relay team members, just missed qualifying  it would be better to say did not qualify or remove just. Concision and tone (this could be a neutrality issue, but I thought better to put it in the copy edit section)
Brijesh Lawrence very narrowly qualified same as above: he either qualified or he didn't. The modifiers aren't concise and change the tone of the article.
He was a little faster in the semifinals, more clear and concise to say something like He improved his time...
and is the oldest sprinter at these Games uses present tense. The games were a year ago.
its official debut  did they have an unofficial debut? If not, remove official for concision.
who set a historic milestone  this is more of a neutrality issue, but can also be addressed under concision: just state that he was the first to participate in five games. The reader will know this is historic (for a humourous take on this, see WP:ASTONISHME).
Done with all. Kees08 (Talk) 07:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Per MOS:BOLDAVOID, Saint Kitts and Nevis and the Olympics shouldn't be bolded and linked at the same time. MOS doesn't dictate that things without a formal and well known name be bolded, so what you do here is up to you. Everything else looks to comply with MOS
Because the title of the article is not in the first sentence, I think I am supposed to unbold it, which I have done. Kees08 (Talk) 06:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
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: 
References are in an acceptable 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: 
Can you reference the introductory sentence to athletics? It is contained in all the references, but even DYK requires a citation per paragraph, and I like to see it on GAs too.
Fair enough, I think I had issues finding a single source for all of them, but was able to find one pretty easily this time. Done! Kees08 (Talk) 07:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Similarly, can we have a notes column in the table so people can easily link to the references from the table? The default style of Wikipedia is prose, but a lot of our readers only view the tables and graphics so having references here is helpful.
Kees08, thanks for the changes. From what I can tell, this is the only one that wasn't addressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I really hate working with wiki tables, so I saved it for last. Done. Kees08 (Talk) 06:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwig comes up clean
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: 
No neutrality issues
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No edit wars
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: 
All have valid licenses on Commons.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
I actually think the picture of Adams in his heat detracts from the article: it is of so low quality with the sun (?) on the left side that it is distracting. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I can agree with that, wish I had photoshop and was proficient in it to fix it. Kees08 (Talk) 07:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Kees08, overall pretty good. It needs some cleanup, but it is definitely not beyond bringing up to GA standards. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Its a pass. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)