Talk:Track and field/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 04:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

"There are also "combined events", such as heptathlon and decathlon, in which athletes compete in a number of the above events" You should specify how many contests each has rather than simply saying "a number"
Number of events now stated in main prose – I've left this out of the lead as the sentence is defining combined events, rather than specific types of those events. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The history section is far too long and detailed for an article like this. While interesting, I don't really need to know about paper chases or when certain groups abandoned amateurism to get an understanding of the history of the sport. If someone needs that kind of detail, there is an article on it. The section needs a lot of pruning. See WP:Summary style.
There is no dedicated article at History of track and field. Do you suggest spinning the current content off into such an article (most major sports have one) then condense the material down? SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting that this doesn't have its own history article. I recommend it be spun out, but won't require it for GA. Since it's not summarizing anything, and the article is still of a reasonable length, I don't think it's problematic. Though a dedicated article would allow for more detailed coverage. Wugapodes (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~"which was literally a race from one end of the stadium to the other" Here literally sounds unencyclopedic and should be removed and reworded.~~
Now removed. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the hurdling section, conversions need to be consistent. For example "Women's hurdles are slightly lower at 84 cm for the 100 m event and 76 cm (2 ft 6in) for the 400 m event." has only the second height converted but not the first.
Conversions now applied across units. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, the conversion should have a similar level of precision as the original number, so "120-yard race (109.72 m)" should be fixed.~~
Fixed conversions to zero decimal places where suitable. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The wikilink in this sentence points to Steeplechase (athletics) rather than Steeplechase (horse racing) which is what was expected: "this event was born as a human variation on the original steeplechase competition found in horse racing."
Fixed (not really sure how that got there as the link was correct in the original!) SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~"A men's standing triple jump event featured at the 1900 and 1904 Olympics" this sentence needs to be fixed.~~
Reworded for better agreement. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~"...finally featuring on the women's Olympic programme a century later." A specific date for when the women's hammer throw was first contested should be included.~~
It was exactly a century later, but I've now stated 2000 for clarity. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The table in the combined events section doesn't make much sense. What do the sub-columns represent? How are pole vault and weight throw related? why are they in the same column? This presentation should be rethought.
This wasn't the original design so I've reverted the problem away. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While much better, I'm still not sure this is the best way to convey the information. It's good though, and I don't have a better idea, so I'm not going to hold up the review, but as it goes forward, I recommend you and others consider if and how it can be improved.
"At most international competitions the commands of the starter in his or her own language, in English or in French, shall, in races up to and including 400 m, be "On your marks" and "Set". When all athletes are "set", the gun must be fired, or an approved starting apparatus must be activated." This sentence is confusing and should be reworded.
Done a whole load of rewording here. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Wugapodes (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Oscar Pistorius image does not have a caption.~~
Fixed to thumb to show caption. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the article has too many images. While it is good that just about every event has an illustration, it gets out of hand. I would recommend only using illustrations for lesser-known or more complex sports, and limiting them to very high quality ones. For example, the triple jump image doesn't really convey what the triple jump is. And in the meetings section, the text is sandwiched between two images which is discouraged.
I've replaced the triple jump image with a video showing the jump instead. I've removed the bump-out picture in the meetings section. I think the rest of the images are pretty important to keep, given the broadness of the sport. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I still think the number of images could be reduced, it's not a problem for GA. Wugapodes (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~I feel like "Olympic Games" should be wikilinked in the lead. Perhaps to Ancient Olympic Games.~~

Fixed. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Perhaps a brief note on where the term "shot" in shot put came from would be nice~~

Added. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If an athlete leaves the track or steps on the line demarking the track, he/she should be disqualified." Here "he/she" is clunky. I would recommend rewording to avoid needing gendered pronouns, or use "he or she".

Reworded most of this section. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The field rules section features no inline citations. While not required, it would be helpful for verification if the sources used were included at the end of the paragraphs.

Will it be OK to give citations from the IAAF rulebook for this? SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You don't even have to include specific sections, just that the information came from the rule book rather than a secondary source would be good. Wugapodes (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results

On hold for 7 days pending changes. While it seems like a lot, this is actually a really short list for an article of this size and I'm glad to say that this is a well done article. If you have questions or need clarification, just ask. Looking forward to the changes! Wugapodes (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, I just wanted to point out that the nominator, TheEditor867, has not been as active lately, so it may take longer than seven days for he or she to log on and see that a review has begun. Given that the article was nominated back in mid-May (!), I think extending the hold as necessary would be appropriate. I hope you agree. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: If TheEditor867 doesn't respond soon then please let me know. I'm the largest contributor to the article so am in a good position to pick up the GA nom if they don't. Cheers. SFB 20:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is a good article, at least extremely closely. 333 -blue 11:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sillyfolkboy: (and any other editors who wish to help) since the nominator hasn't returned to address the issues, I would be willing to extend the hold period for at least another week for you to address the issues. Let me know if you're willing. Wugapodes (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Responses and updates now done. A couple of questions left. SFB 23:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Listed A very comprehensive article! As all of my required comments (and all but one of my optionally comments) are resolved, I'm going to list it as a GA. I think that it is well on its way to FA status and would like to commend all the editors who helped to make this article as good as it is. Thanks Sillyfolkboy for taking this on, and for all your hard work! I hope to see this at FAC one day soon. Wugapodes (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]