# Talk:Water polo at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament

This review is transcluded from Talk:Water polo at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 23:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


### Lead
MOS:LEADCITE — this has no real bearing on the outcome of the review, but you should preferably have this statement sourced in the body.  Couldn’t the source be moved to the first sentence in the "Preliminary round" section? ("The tournament began on 16 September 2000, with all six teams competing on the first day.")
[It was] the first time the tournament was held at the Olympic Games…[despite] it being held as a demonstration sport at the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, women's water polo was not accepted as part of the 2000 Olympics until October 1997.
Again, no real bearing on the outcome of the review, but don’t you think this important and fascinating history should be briefly mentioned in the lead, preferably cut down and summarized? For example, "it was the first time women’s water polo was held at the Olympic Games".


### Background and qualification
the table breaks the right margin on iOS mobile.  This might be just a bug, so it’s likely you can’t do anything about it, but your other tables don’t do this, possibly because they have a narrower width.  It does look like there’s a lot of empty space here and the table width can be shortened to fix this.  Or not.
Fixed with 800px table width.


### Images
article currently has no images, but there are several available on commons.  For example:
File:Heather Petri.jpg
File:Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre.jpg
File:Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre 2.jpg
File:Brenda Villa - Olympic Medal winner at ALMA Awards (cropped).jpg
File:Australian Institute of Sport coaches - Istvan Gorgenyi.jpg
File:Konuch.png
File:Karin-kuipers-1300736022.jpg
File:Danielle-de-bruijn-1344286670.jpg


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

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
I don’t think the nominator is very active, so I made a small series of very simple copy edits based on the above issues and passed the article.  There are currently no images in the article, but I made a list of all the available relevant images on Commons that can be added here.  Personally, I don’t feel comfortable adding these images, so I will leave it to others (especially the nominator) to decide if they are needed. Viriditas (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)