Talk:2011 Pan American Games torch relay/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LauraHale (talk · contribs) 01:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Stating criteria for reference: A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Well written

• The lead does not summarise the body, and is not written in summary style. Information in the lead needs to be put into a completely different section, and a new lead section created. Tempted to fail the article based on this alone. --LauraHale (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Factually accurate and verifiable

• Major concerns here about text being copied from Spanish into English: [1]. --LauraHale (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

• Article is currently listed as start and feels that way for a reason. Using 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay as an example, it has sections for The Torch and other relay elements, and media coverage. The article is assessed as B. 2010 Summer Youth Olympics torch relay is listed as start class. It has similar elements to the Olympics, with the route appearing in more detail and not in a table alone. 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay has a planning section. 2009 East Asian Games torch relay is probably one of the more comparable articles. It still has the torch, route and bearers as separate sections. 2010 Asian Games torch relay is like this article, except it still has multiple sections. This is listed as a start and that seems fair. This article looks like 2010 Winter Olympics torch relay route, which is listed as List class. Need to have confirmation from nominator or those working on improving the article that sections will be added, and see this worked on. Unless the broadness of coverage is made more obvious, this will lead to article failure. --LauraHale (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

• What is there appears to be neutral. --LauraHale (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Stable

• Article appears stable, with very few edits. --LauraHale (talk)

Illustrated, if possible, by images

• All images have acceptable copyright status, or contain fair use rationales. Alt text would be nice but not required. --LauraHale (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Overall

After more investigating, I have some concerns about copying. At least one sentence was taken from this article and there are other examples in the article. Couple that with the lack of comprehensiveness of the article, it gets failed. :( --LauraHale (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)