# Talk:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611091801/http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/2004/Results/ to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/2004/Results/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2004 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TonyBallioni (talk · contribs) 16:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'll do this one. Might not get around to much of it today, but starting it so I remember that I said I'd do it :)
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Saint Kitts and Nevis participated in three Olympic Games between its Olympic debut at the 1996 Games in Atlanta, United States, and the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, Greece I think you are trying to say this was their third Olympic appearance. This sentence reads as if it was their fourth. Just say this was their third Olympics, and mention the first one they appeared in.
 Done --Cameron11598 (Talk)  17:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Good here
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: 
No issues
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: 
No issues
C. It contains no original research: 
Ponteen finished fourth in her heat, and second in the quarter finals for the event The source I'm looking at has her as 4th in her heat and then 5th in the semi-finals [1]. You know how to read this things better than I do, so you can tell me if I'm reading it wrong.
I think that was just me transcribing the wrong thing, I had it correct in the table. I've fixed it now. --Cameron11598 (Talk)  17:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwig is down. I'll check again after the above are addressed.
Comes up clean. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Covers the games for this country
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Summarizes the sources fine.
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 seen
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: 
Flag is good on copyright.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Cameron, see above. If you can fix those minor issues, this should be good to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni:  Done, --Cameron11598 (Talk)  17:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I've passed it. Good work. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)