Talk:Venues of the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Batard0 (talk · contribs) 03:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I'll take this one on. On a first read, it looks like it may need a bit of work, but not too much. I'll make some general observations and suggestions, and once these are addressed, I'll take a more thorough look at the prose for clarity and conciseness. Then I'll evaluate the article against the remaining GA criteria. --Batard0 (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• The article lacks context to a degree in that there's no discussion around how the venues were selected and why. Is there any reliable-source coverage of the decision to select the venues? What was the reasoning behind the selection of the venues? How much is it expected to cost to improve existing venues and build new ones for the games? Who was in charge of selecting the venues?
  • Somewhat simplified all the venues, except the Lillehammer Olympic Village, are just reusing the 1994 Olympic venues. I added a sentence or two that this was deliberately a re-use Olympics, but there isn't much more to say about venue selection (there is only one ski jumping hill, one bobsleigh track and one speed-skating rink etc. in the vicinity). Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the article could also use a more complete discussion of the background of the games. Perhaps a short first section titled "Background" would be warranted. This could describe how the games were organized and how the selection of venues fit into the games' organization.
  • Added. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• There are three sources for the article, but none is fully independent of the subject; they're all Olympic committee documents. Are there some independent sources that could be added to fill out the references? --Batard0 (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Quite a number of such references have been added. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is minor, but the Bibliography section should also come after the References section, per the MoS: "A general references section should come after any footnotes section(s)" ("general reference" is earlier referred to as including a bibliography). --Batard0 (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review; as you see, you comments have improved the article considerably. My apologizes for the late reply, but I have had a rather busy week. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, these look great. I'm now going to go through and examine the prose. I think it'll be mostly nitpicks.

Lead

• In this bit: "venues are to be used, with all except the Youth Olympic Village in Lillehammer and a training ice rink being existing venues" I think using a semicolon is slightly better here (see WP:PLUSING) but either way is ok: "venues are to be used; all except the Youth Olympic Village in Lillehammer and a training ice rink are existing venues"
  • Yes, the semicolon reads better. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• In this sentence: "Two skating halls are located in Hamar, Hamar Olympic Amphitheatre and Vikingskipet," I thnk it's slightly clearer to put it this way: "Two skating halls, Hamar Olympic Amphitheatre and Vikingskipet, are located in Hamar,"
  • Agreed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Background

• Is "new bid" redlinked on purpose because an article doesn't exist or is there another explanation?
  • It is an article that should exist and which I intend to create when I get around to it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think it'd be good if we could take the following out of passive voice: "A new bid was launched for the 1994 Olympics[2] which were awarded Lillehammer on 15 September 1988". Something like: "Lillehammer made a new bid for the 1994 Olympics, which it won on 15 September 1988"
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• "although the former would only be used for training" --> " although the former was only used for training" is better.
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• "the speed skating events were planned held" --> "the speed skating events were to be held"?
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Competition venues

More to come...

• "with the stadium itself having a capacity for 31,000 spectators during cross-country skiing and 13,500 during biathlon." : Per WP:PLUSING it'd be better to express this as a new sentence, I think -- so end the previous sentence with "combined." Then: "The stadium has a capacity for 31,000 spectators during cross-country skiing and 13,500 during biathlon."
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• "In addition, spectators could watch from along the tracks" --> "Spectators can also watch from along the tracks" (for conciseness)
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Nordic Countries" : I don't think we need to capitalize "countries" here (correct me if I'm wrong), and it might be good to wikilink this.
  • "Nordic Countries" is a proper noun as it is the name of a particular area. The MOS states to not link "major geographical areas", typically interpreted as the size of a country and larger. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, interesting stuff on the wikilink. On the question of capitalization, though, the Nordic countries article never capitalizes Nordic Countries; I think we should follow this convention unless there is a compelling reason not to (such as if you found that the Nordic countries article is improperly sourced and it should be capitalized per most reliable sources). --Batard0 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I did a quick search and it seems that both can be used. Beats me why the name of a geographic area wouldn't be capitalized. Either way I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a deterministic source for capitalization (all articles are nevertheless to be consistently spelled/capitalized with the article). Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Kristins Hall will host both ice hockey and curling" : we can remove "both" without changing the meaning (conciseness)
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• "short track speed skating" : should this be "short-track"? Usually compound adjectives take hyphens, but this may be the official name of the sport; I'm not sure. Same with "long track" later in the same para.
  • I would initially agree with you, although I notice the article is located at short track speed skating. I have added the hyphens. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• "will be undertaken" is a bit cumbersome -- could we do something like "will take place"?
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• "The area has hosted world cup or world championship-level competitions" -- can we wikilink world cup or world championship? I guess since we're talking about multiple events it might be difficult.
  • That would be referring to half a dozen competitions, so it can't really be linked to any particular article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-competition venues

• Is "Main Media Centre" an official name that needs caps?
  • That is my interpretation, at least (I understand this is the designated name of the city, rather than a description of the site). Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• "which take place in Hamar and Gjøvik" --> should be "that take place" OR put a comma after the preceding close parenthesis.
  • Comma would do the job. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

That's about it for prose. Well done -- address the outstanding prose issues and I'll list it. --Batard0 (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the feedback. I have fixed all the issues or explained myself. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. A couple minor things cropped up on a final reading:

• I think we can remove "to be held" from the first sentence. That or remove "scheduled" since "scheduled" and "to be held" essentially have the same meaning. I think it would be better to remove "to be held" because it's slightly longer.
  • "scheduled" needs to be included because we cannot say now if they will be held or not. Tweaked the sentence a bit, but personally I preferred the old way. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
    • This is better -- trust me. Both "scheduled" and "to be held" do not say for certain whether they will be held. If I say "I am to go to school tomorrow at 8," that may change and I don't make it to school. Same with "School is scheduled to start at 8". The only thing that firmly says something will happen is "will", which we use a few times in the article. Technically, we should not use "will", but it's not an issue. --Batard0 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• "training ice rink being existing venues" should be "training ice rink are existing venues"
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Lillehammer made a new bid" --> "Lillehammer then made a new bid" is a bit clearer.
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Rest of it is fine. Well done. --Batard0 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok - I'm listing now. Thanks for all the work. --Batard0 (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)