# Talk:Puerto Rico at the 2008 Summer Olympics

This review is transcluded from Talk:Puerto Rico at the 2008 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs) 22:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

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: 
Good luck improving the article


### Comments
1)This section is passable. However one concern: some sections are way too long and might be uncomfortable for some readers to navigate. I suggest you shorten some sections.
I broke up the two longest sections (athletics and boxing) into smaller subsections by event, then limited the table of contents. What are your thoughts? --Starstriker7(Talk) 09:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
2) Mostly everything seems to be sourced well. However the whole introduction paragraph is not and some facts like the flagbearer are not as well.
It is to my understanding that leads do not need to be sourced, as their information ought to be entirely enclosed in the article itself. It is the article body alone that needs to be sourced. Also, the flagbearer item is cited at the end of the background paragraph. --Starstriker7(Talk) 15:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
3) N/A
4) N/A
5) N/A
6) I think you should add 2-3 more images to the article. Some parts are just full of writing a picture needs to be put.
I don't think pictures are mandatory for GA, but I have added the images to make the article seem more on balance. --Starstriker7(Talk) 09:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Although the above issues are minor, I am unable to pass you at the moment and will wait till you fix the above to decided on a pass/fail. Intoronto1125TalkContributions  23:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for reviewing the article. I know you've put a seven-day hold on it, but may I ask you to extend that for several days? I am out of my country at the moment, and simultaneous access to free time and a computer is few and far between. I should be in a position to finish the review by the 9th. --Starstriker7(Talk) 09:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure take your time. Intoronto1125TalkContributions  12:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Finally home! I believe I have addressed everything. Let me know if there is anything left to consider. --Starstriker7(Talk) 09:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I am going to pass it. Congratulations. Intoronto1125TalkContributions  10:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)