Talk:Philippines at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Please add Shooting section

Competitor: Jayson Valdez Romerjames (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Why you remove the shooting he is qualified, there is 19 competitors for the Philippines Romerjames (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Shooting quotas for Philippines from the ISSF cannot be confirmed correctly, only confirmed by the NOC of the Philippines, no confirmation from ISSF, because athletes who will compete must receive a referral letter from the International Federation, not the National Federation. You must wait until the ISSF published the full quotas list for Tokyo 2021 Jr Tahun (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Hidilyn Diaz with her gold medal 2021 (1-44 screenshot).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hidilyn Diaz with her gold medal 2021 (1-44 screenshot).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Philippines at the 2020 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 Hi I took care of the sources needed just like you asked! Arconning (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	One pass done, hold for final check. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I have added templates where citations need to be found, or a newer citation is needed. Please add these asap. Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC) @Arconning, I think this is the main thing standing between this article and GA, so let me know when you have taken care of it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Issue addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig turns up nothing, hold for manual spot-check. Pass, no issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Nothing else of note to cover for this topic. A few cases where a little more detail wouldn't go amiss, but nothing below GA standard.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All look good, no issues - pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	It would be nice if there were a couple more images added to image-free sections, but I understand if none are available. Conditional pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.