Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2002 Winter Olympics medal count

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:54, 26 June 2008 [1].

2002 Winter Olympics medal count

edit

This is another medal count, modeled after the recently promoted 2006 Winter Olympics medal count. It is fully sourced and all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion0422 06:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

  • "However" isn't a good word to start a sentence with (grammatical conjunction)
    • Fixed.
  • "Stefania Belmondo of Italy got the silver" How about "Italian Stefania Belmondo received the silver", as got is a bit blah, and <name> of <country> currently appears 3 times in the same sentence and is a bit repetitive
    • Fixed.
  • Shouldn't the table be default-sorted to the Total rankings, rather than gold rankings? (So Germany first, US 2nd, Norway 3rd? This would follow the Lead which says "Germany led in overall medals (36) for the second consecutive Olympiad".
  • Speaking of that sentence, does this mean two consecutive Winter Olympiads, or the 2000 Summer Olympics and this one?

That's all I have. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More

  • I'm not keen on "bumping their total", it sounds too informal
  • The ==Changes in medal standings== section looks overwhelming because it is all one paragraph. Is there any way it can be split into two, perhaps three?
  • I'm still not convinced by the default sort order, even if it is the way the IOC does it. I think Wikipedia should present it in the best way possible for its readers, rather than pandering to official committees, boards and companies, and as it's basically a "total medal count", it should be sorted by totals.
    • What I meant was that the IOC (and most sources) consider gold medals to be the most important statistic. So, the country with the most gold medals is considered the nation that led all others and that is how they do their rankings. Besides, the table is sortable. -- Scorpion0422 16:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not just the IOC either. Some media sources (like the BBC) also sort this way, although other media sorts by total. Given the two possible choices, since it seems to be split 50–50, we have a longstanding consensus at WP:WikiProject Olympics to use the sorting method of the primary source. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Non-breaking spaces, ahem.
  • Should be a commma before current refs 3 and 4 in the sentence.
  • "most medalled athletes" Is "medalled" an adjective? Maybe it would be better to use another construction.
  • the same "global ranking per country" is there, as with every other medal count list, and as with all the rest, I have no idea what it means. Who in the world put that sentence everywhere? Anyway, should be removed or clarified.

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "BBC Spport (April 30, 2002)" — BBC Sport
  • "the 10 Km race" — "10 km race"? I'm not too sure if this is a proper name or something so that's why it's capitalized?

Gary King (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Excellent list! I enjoyed reading it. =) --Dem393 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Don't force the bolded title. It reads awkwardly, so I'd recommend taking out the bold and just starting it with a sentence that makes since and isn't redundant. For accessibility reasons, you shouldn't indicate anything just by color. So the host country thing should be labeled someway else (maybe you could italicize the US's name?). Looks good other than that. Drewcifer (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Two bad links, checked using this.
    • Both have been fixed.
  • "second consecutive Winter Games" needs a citation, perhaps borrowed from the 1998 article?
    • Done.
  • "Norway was awarded two extra gold medals" - this really needs expanding upon, especially as it's confusing with the intro to the next section.
    • This is expanded upon in one of the below sections
  • Image caption is a fragment so needs the have the full stop removed.
    • Done.
  • Any chance of a link for darbepoetin?
    • It was already linked at least once in the article, but since I have added more links/
  • "won two more medals, but was allowed to keep them until 2003" - I think it'd be better to say "...and was allowed to keep them until...".
    • Fixed.
  • You've got BBC Sport, Fox News etc linked in the citations, but not ESPN, International Olympic Committee etc. Be consistent with the linking.
    • Done.
  • Are five external links necessary here? Do they add anything the existing citations don't already provide?

That's my lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • The following two sentences should be rewritten, IMO. It doesn't flow very well. Immediately following the Games, Germany was also the gold medal leader with twelve. Two years later, in February 2004, Norway was awarded two extra gold medals, (see below) raising their total to thirteen and giving them the lead.
    • The controversy about the French judge was a big deal, so it should be mentioned in the lead. It can be added to the last one-sentence paragraph.

--Crzycheetah 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the sentences as you suggested, but I'm not sure if the French judge controversy should be mentioned in the lead, since this is an article about the full medal tally, not individual medalists. -- Scorpion0422 02:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would still merge those two sentences using the "however" connector. As for the French judge, she affected the medal tally in some way, didn't she?--Crzycheetah 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She did, which is why she is mentioned later in the article, but I'm still not sure if it's lead worthy. -- Scorpion0422 03:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but:
  • Country linking in the main text: hardly necessary for anglophone and well-known countries; inconsistent anyway (Norway is linked on second appearance, not first, and Germany and many others not at all. I'd be inclined to link either no countries or only less well-known ones to English-speaking readers—Croatia and Estonia, say—if you can cope, and definitely not to link Australia, the US or China. The opening is very blue and messy.
  • Trivials: en dashes, not > in the British external piped link. And MOS says en dashes as separators must be spaced if there's one or more spaces in the linked items. TONY (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/2002_Winter_Olympics_medal_count&oldid=1146636605"