Talk:Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics

Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics 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. Review: April 7, 2019. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Olympics Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Micronesia: Nauru Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Nauru (assessed as Low-importance).

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Nauru at the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 09:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

Hello, I'll review this. Will be in touch soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Mostly good now after some necessary corrections completed, but please see the questions below. Done.
2. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. No MOS problems now, though some copyediting has been necessary.
3. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided. Just one sentence needing citation: see below. Done.
4. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc. No problems.
5. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline. The reflist is fine.
6. No original research. No problems.
7. No copyright violations or plagiarism. No problems.
8. Broad in its coverage. Only a short article but the coverage is excellent and very informative. Completely within scope.
9. Neutral. Fully meets NPOV by being objective throughout.
10. Stable. No problems.
11. Illustrated, if possible. Apart from the flag, none, and would not really expect any so this is not applicable.
12. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright. As above.

Questions

This is looking quite good overall and it's encouraging to find coverage of a small nation like Nauru. I'm placing the review on hold for the moment because there are a couple of things that need to be addressed.

1. I didn't understand the words "outside of direct qualifying position" (used twice) and, in the context, I think both instances needed to be rephrased as "outside of direct qualification". I'm wondering if a brief explanation of "direct qualification" might help the readers with an indication of Uera's position in the rankings.
2. A citation or two is needed for the sentence about Marcus Stephen. While I know from his WP article that the statement is true, it still needs to be cited. Also, I changed the word "notorious" in this sentence to "notable" because I cannot see any reason for notoriety there. Would you please check the wording? If there is notoriety involved, a brief explanation would help.

Look forward to your reply. Thanks very much. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker:

1. I reworded the first instance and removed the second instance. See [1]
2. Added a citation. Thanks for the edit. See [2]

-- Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Result of review

@DatGuy: Thanks for the citation and the judo edit. I'm more than happy to pass this now. Well done and all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]