Talk:44th Chess Olympiad/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   see 2D

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig shows 21% risk, so a good level. Will do a source spotcheck for plagiarism, OR, and close paraphrasing. Done successfully.

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Any progress? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. Will get started now. Some points to begin with:

• Per WP:LEAD, "a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". Six rather messy paragraphs do not satisfy the criteria.
• Notes need to be cited.
• Some citations could be improved in format/layout: 2, 49, 123.
• Per MOS:OVERSECTION, "short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." This applies to the short pararaphs in the preparations, marketing, broadcasting, and concerns sections.
• "Women's" vs "women's" needs to be standardised
• "The women's tournament featured three of the ten top players according to the FIDE rating list published in July 2022: sisters Mariya Muzychuk and Anna Muzychuk plus Nana Dzagnidze." must be cited as it is a statistic.

Placing this on hold while work goes on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for the review. I've improved the article in line with the points above. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Passing now. Congratulations! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.