Talk:Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/GA1

Good Article Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

Lead

• "Rio de Janeiro was chosen over São Paulo by the Brazilian Olympic Committee (BOC) as the national postulant city for the XXXI Olympiad in September 1, 2006, starting a process of ten years until the Olympics." - This is fairly nonsensical to me. Selecting Rio did not start a process of ten years to the Olympics, the passage of time starts this. I might suggest simply ending this sentence at "...in September 1, 2006."
  •  Done Change from "starting a process of ten years until the Olympics" to "during its Annual Assembly". Felipe Menegaz 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Also, "in September 1" reads awkwardly, as "on September 1" is more normal to me. Is the use of "in" rather than "on" for dates common usage for South American speakers of English? If so, then this is fine
  • Should I change everything from "in" to "on"? Felipe Menegaz 16:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Only if "in" is not common English usage where you are. It reads awkwardly to me as it is, but at the same time, so do many Britishisms when I read articles in UK English.

Candidature process

• "The Rio de Janeiro 2016 Candidate File is 2.50 m (8 ft 2 in) in height, and 700 kilograms (1,500 lb) in weight" I admire the attention to detail, but is this statement really necessary?
  • Well, this statement should be removed in the amendments of October 2, 2009, when will be replaced with more relevant information about the Election Results. Felipe Menegaz 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Candidature details

• "In May 4, 2009, the ROCOG accused the Madrid Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games (MOCOG) to sent a spy to Rio de Janeiro during the inspection of the candidature, considering filing a formal ethics complaint with the IOC." This statement begins in the past-tense, and ends in the future-tense. I would imagine that at this point, the ROCOG is no longer considering filing a complant - either they did, or they did not. If they did not, I'd simply change it to say they "considered filing a complaint." If they did file one, however, could you include what came of that?
  •  Done Change from "considering filing a formal ethics complaint with the IOC" to "considered filing a formal ethics complaint with the IOC". Felipe Menegaz 16:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know what exactly passed. The ROCOG and the MOCOG have not spoken officially about the case, and the media has not developed the story. So I think that there was no formal complaint with the IOC. Felipe Menegaz 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

General

• Dates should not be linked per MOS:UNLINKDATES unless the date articles themselves are relevant.
  •  Done Removed all dates links. Felipe Menegaz 16:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• You've done a fantastic job of presenting all of the positive aspects of Rio's bid. However, I do find the general absence of the drawbacks and concerns to be interesting. While the crime issue is given a brief mention, I would be interested in knowing why Rio scored as low as it did based on their Application File. Is it possible to expand this a little? I will admit that a quick Google search has not proven fruitful, so there may well not be any great possibility for expansion.
  • There is no great controversy about the candidature of Rio de Janeiro. There is no kind of protest against the bid or popular opposition. The two major controversies are duly mentioned in the article: between the IOC, the ROCOG and the DOCOG (the choice of Rio de Janeiro over Doha despite the evaluation scores), and between the ROCOG and the MOCOG (the spying scandal). In addition, flaws in technical issues such as safety and transportation should be detailed in the main article: Infrastructure of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. Felipe Menegaz 16:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Sources and images look good.

Overall, however, very detailed, and well written. As I noted, I will be gone for the weekend, but I have little doubt that I will be passing this when I return. Cheers, Resolute 15:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

All now looks good. As such, I am passing this as a GA. Resolute 22:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)