Talk:Equatorial Guinea at the 2000 Summer Olympics

Equatorial Guinea at the 2000 Summer Olympics has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: June 1, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Olympics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Equatorial Guinea Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Equatorial Guinea (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was created or improved during the "African 10,000 Challenge", which started in 1 September 2016 and is still continuing. You can help!

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Equatorial Guinea at the 2000 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/20001109071400/http://www.olympics.com/eng/ to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/2000/2000v1.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/2000/2000v2.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/2000/Results.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705032224/http://www.olympic.org/ to http://www.olympic.org

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) 05:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Equatorial Guinea at the 2000 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and review this one shortly. Canadian Paul 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 (references): 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, 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:
· · ·

Just a few comments:

1. IIRC, Eric Moussambani gained some notoriety with the nickname "Eric the Eel". In terms of completeness, I feel that since he earned that name at the Games, readers would likely be searching for information on that, or at least a mention, and it should be easy to find reliable sources that discuss this aspect.

•  Done That aspect has been added. MWright96 (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Under "Swimming", third paragraph: "like Moussambani, Bolopa qualified for the Games as a wildcard because she did not meet the minimum qualification standards for the women's 50 metre freestyle, following submission to swimming trials and was selected after training for one and a half months." - I feel like there is something missing here, but I don't know what it is because I don't understand the sentence in its entirety with the addition of the second half.

• I have removed it to avoid confusion. MWright96 (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Same paragraph, two problems with the following sentences: "Bolopa took part in the contest's first heat on 22 September, finishing second out of three entered participants, with a time of one minute and 3.97 seconds. The time set a new record as the slowest for a female athlete in Olympic history and was double the slowest time. 1) How could it be the slowest time ever if she finished second out of three entrants? If someone was disqualified or didn't show up, that should be clarified. 2) In the second sentence, does this mean it was double the time of the next slowest athlete or double the time of the previous record? This should also be clarified.

• Bolopa's time was double the fastest swimmer and one of the heat's participant's was disqualified for a false start. MWright96 (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and place the article on hold for a period of up to seven days so that these concerns can be addressed. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page often, so I should notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 22:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Canadian Paul: I have made amendments where possible. Is there anything else that needs my attention? MWright96 (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the most recent edits, I believe that this article now meets the GA criteria and will therefore be passing it as such. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 22:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96 and Canadian Paul: this is not the first Olympics GA I see passed that violates MOS:LEAD, specifically MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD. MOS:PSEUDOHEAD should also be observed, even if it's strictly speaking not part of the GACR. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments @Finnusertop:. In regards to the former, I've seen that reverted back and forth on so many articles (including good and featured ones) that I tend to just leave it alone to avoid the edit warring. If you want to fix it, you have my support. As for the second one, half the time I try to raise anything that's not explicitly on the list, I get pointed to WP:GANOT. While I won't pretend that I was aware of this particularly part of the MOS, even if I had been, I wouldn't have raised it. It's actually one of the reasons I rarely review GAs anymore... too many editors who want to force strict adherence to the guidelines so they can add another bauble to their user page and too few who want to actually improve articles (not accusing the nom of anything, just a general observation from having reviewed for a long time and lurked for even longer). Best option is usually just to do it yourself and hope you don't get reverted. Canadian Paul 23:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree, Canadian Paul, a GA review should focus on the GACR. Calling for every obscure MOS to be followed is not the point of GA; it's not even the point of FA. So, I hope I didn't discourage you and your GA philosophy, which I think is commendable. But yeah, I'll just implement the edits myself. I'm just one of those miserable editors who can't help it if they see something that the MOS does not agree with ;). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]