This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games 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. | ||||||||||
|
An image used in this article, File:1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games Competitors Team Photograph.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 June 2012
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games Competitors Team Photograph.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Fayedizard ( talk · contribs) 09:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article in accordence with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles, Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations. Sport is a new area for me so I'm also going to be looking at existing GA-class articles like 1960_Winter_Olympics and 1948_Winter_Olympics - and even FA class articles like 1956_Winter_Olympics and 1952_Winter_Olympics, although obviously the requirement isn't going to be that strict. The review will be completed today (23rd June) and there will be a straightforward seven days to correct any issues that come up.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | There are a few issues here…
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | As above. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Appears pretty good. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | No obvious problems | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems :) | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No problems, appears to be the work of one decidated editor. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Captions and Alt-text. Good Job. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Extra - Article is looking vastly better than it did 24-hours ago. The big remaining problem is that stuff in the lead is not in the rest of the article - sorting this out is doing to require changes to the prose all over the article so ideally I'd do another quick prose review after that happens. When sorting that out, it might be worthwhile to look at the number of sections you have that are only one paragraph (currently it's 8 out of 11) - might be worth combining a few together (and just finding a place to press enter a few times in the Background section). Fayedizard ( talk) 08:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Aussiesportlibrarian ( talk) 03:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC) The image problem has now been resolved by a FUR (fair use rationale) being added to the logo, and the APC donating the other two images to Wikimedia Commons. John Vandenberg ( chat) 06:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games 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. | ||||||||||
|
An image used in this article, File:1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games Competitors Team Photograph.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 13 June 2012
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:1962 Commonwealth Paraplegic Games Competitors Team Photograph.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Fayedizard ( talk · contribs) 09:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll be reviewing this article in accordence with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles, Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations. Sport is a new area for me so I'm also going to be looking at existing GA-class articles like 1960_Winter_Olympics and 1948_Winter_Olympics - and even FA class articles like 1956_Winter_Olympics and 1952_Winter_Olympics, although obviously the requirement isn't going to be that strict. The review will be completed today (23rd June) and there will be a straightforward seven days to correct any issues that come up.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | There are a few issues here…
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | As above. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Appears pretty good. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | No obvious problems | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems :) | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No problems, appears to be the work of one decidated editor. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Captions and Alt-text. Good Job. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Extra - Article is looking vastly better than it did 24-hours ago. The big remaining problem is that stuff in the lead is not in the rest of the article - sorting this out is doing to require changes to the prose all over the article so ideally I'd do another quick prose review after that happens. When sorting that out, it might be worthwhile to look at the number of sections you have that are only one paragraph (currently it's 8 out of 11) - might be worth combining a few together (and just finding a place to press enter a few times in the Background section). Fayedizard ( talk) 08:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Aussiesportlibrarian ( talk) 03:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC) The image problem has now been resolved by a FUR (fair use rationale) being added to the logo, and the APC donating the other two images to Wikimedia Commons. John Vandenberg ( chat) 06:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)