Talk:2013 Continental Cup of Curling/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 04:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Taking this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

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

• Disambig links: OK
• Reference check: Issues found

1. Team World splits mixed doubles to hold lead at Continental Cup (info) [vancouversun.com] - dead
2. World team leads early at 2013 Continental Cup curling competition (info) [calgaryherald.com] - dead
3. Team North America stretches lead over World at Continental Cup curling (info) [leaderpost.com] - dead

Dead references fixed. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Prose is a major problem holding this back:

• " As with last year, " - wording.
• "As in the past," - wording

Both resolved. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• The use of jargon in the competition format needs to be explained for people who have no background of curling formats.

Should be resolved. I added a section explaining the format of the entire tournament, including the four types of competitions contested at the tournament. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Portion of the teams should be in the lead - the lead is too small as a result.

Resolved. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• From Day 1 on the entire text needs to be copy edited and cited as necessary because it is currently lacking in some of its descriptive claims.

Were there any concerns in particular? I've looked through the event summary a few times, and I'm not quite sure I see the need for copyediting. I think the descriptions of the games are adequately covered by the references attached to them. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The singles competition, much like a skills competition in ice hockey, " - wording.

Resolved. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The event detail section looks fine, but it'd be nice to understand what the player percentages meant and just have some clarity established for those who come to the article with no curling background. A major portion of the content that is missing is the commentary and result of the event - what did the news media say, what was its aftermath. That sort of thing. Right now it is on the event, but it doesn't seem to have any media attention and that is a bit of a problem. Placing it on hold for fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I added a bit about how the percentages are determined, and I think most of the more obscure things have been explained in the updates I added. In terms of the "commentary and result," what exactly were you looking for? There are a good number of media sources in the article, and they match up rather well with what's written the text. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Lasting impact on curling from the events of the Cup. Was there any career changes or effects from the events which transpired. More or less. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This was a Ryder Cup-style all-star tournament, so I'm not sure that there was any "lasting impact" on curling. In terms of effects, if these can be counted as such, two of the teams participating on the World side went on to win their first world championships later in the year. I must ask, though: is having a "lasting impact" or something of that nature really necessary for the article to attain "good article" status? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We definitely need an article on curling percentages. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it is an issue for the article. I'll give this another look over and likely pass it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Passed. It meets the minimums. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)