Talk:Afghanistan at the 2002 Asian Games/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 08:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a great-looking article.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Might want to link the box classes

   "winning by a score of 10 to nothing" - better would be just "zero" or "0"

   or just remove the "by a score": winning 10 to...

   "Afghanistan and Qatar played each other " - each other is unnecessary

   "but did not start the event." - do you know why?

I tried very hard to find the cause but still empty-handed. These kinds of things are hardly publicized unless player/athlete like Sharapova refuses to play a match. — Bill william compton^Talk 02:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1. "in which there were four men" - suggest "four of which were men"

   "who left a cut over her right eyebrow" - is this significant?

I thought a little bit comprehensive coverage on Zamani would be better as she was the only medallist. Being feminist it looks an addible fact to me, if not much significant. But I may be biased, so remove the phrase if you want. — Bill william compton^Talk 02:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1. "Afghanistan entered eight wrestlers: " - odd wording; perhaps "eight wrestlers entered the competition".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Can you replace the Reuters ref with a more reliable one?

I didn't know that Reuters doesn't considered to be a reliable source. And, if it is about Rediff.com then I must tell you that it's been widely used in Wikipedia articles. I've scrutinised every possible source, but none is helpful. If it were Olympics then there might be plenty of sources for each bit of information but unfortunately MSEs like Asian Games don't attract much media attention. — Bill william compton^Talk 02:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall: A few small fixes are needed to promote this article. I pass this article! Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 18:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail: