Talk:Kyrgyzstan at the 2010 Winter Olympics

Kyrgyzstan at the 2010 Winter 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: May 29, 2018. (Reviewed version).

Kyrgyzstan Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kyrgyzstan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kyrgyzstan-related topics 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.KyrgyzstanWikipedia:WikiProject KyrgyzstanTemplate:WikiProject KyrgyzstanKyrgyzstan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Olympics Low‑importance

	Olympic Games portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics 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.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kyrgyzstan at the 2010 Winter Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First reading[edit]

1. Writing quality:

In the background section, the sentences "Following the Dissolution... Following recognition..." come off as unnecessarily repetitive. Simplest would just be to remove the "Following recognition" clause, as it doesn't really add any meaning to its sentence.
No MOS issues noted.

2. Sourcing:

All sources appear reliable, all sources are consistently formatted, and all claims appear properly sourced. Maybe it would be appropriate to link Sports Reference in the first one, to make clearer where the information comes from.
Earwig found no copyvio.

3. Coverage:

This article is short but appears to more-or-less cover the subject in its entirety, without too much extraneous detail.

4. Neutrality:

The article is purely factual, with no editorializations.

5. Stable:

Other than the nominator's recent cleanups, yes.

6. Illustrations:

The flagbearer image is seriously underexposed but I guess we work with what we have.
Both it and the flag image are relevant and appear to be properly licensed.
The photo caption is neutrally worded and informative.
The flag image has no caption but I don't think it needs one; the addition of a caption would be too far off-topic and violate WP:ASTONISHME.

@Courcelles: Overall, this seems very close to GA quality. It just needs to fix the phrasing issue for criterion 1 and the source wikilink for criterion 2. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, @David Eppstein:, I've addressed both your concerns. Courcelles (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, passing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]