Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Olympic Games/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:07, 21 February 2009 [1].

Olympic Games[edit]

Nominator(s): H1nkles

After extensive review, editing and peer review, I believe the article is ready for FAC. H1nkles (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments You might want to give the article another once-over; I noticed some spelling/MoS errors and possibly unnatural wording.

  • There were less than 250 athletes at the first Olympic Games. -> "Fewer", not "less", I think.
  • Done
  • The Panathenian Stadium used for Zappas' Games of 1870 and 1875 was refurbished a second time in readiness for the 1896 Games. -> How about "to prepare for the 1896 Games"?
  • Done
  • "current modern Games" Redundant?
  • Done
  • "Citius Altius Fortius" - "Faster, Higher, Stronger" -> I'm pretty sure that should be an em dash, not a hyphen.
  • Done
  • "Olympic champions were treated as conquering heroes, their statues adorned Athens and their home towns." Run-on sentence.
  • Done
  • "began to declined"
  • Changed
  • "mid–19th Century; multi–sport events" Here, hyphens should be used
  • Done
  • Titles of newspapers and such publications should be italicized in citations.

etc.

Also, maybe it's just a matter of taste, but I think there should be at least a few more print sources consulted/used as references. Ink Runner (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments, I've made the fixes suggested above, I'll work on the italicizing of the newspapers/publications in the citations. After reading the article over and over again I tend to lose sight of things that a fresh set of eyes catch. I appreciate your once-over.
    • I notice that the names of the publications are in the "publisher=" field of the citations; they should be in the "work=" field, and the company that publishes the work in the "publisher=" field. For example, for a reference that points to USA Today, "USA Today" should be in the "work=" field and "Gannett Company" should be in the "publisher=" field. That would solve the italics issue, too. Ink Runner (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh ok, I'd had a question about that in the past and I thought I was working it correctly, obviously not. I'll see how much reformatting I can do in the time I have right now. Thanks for the clarification. H1nkles (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding print references I'd like to hear what the community feels on that. I agree there is a heavy reliance on web sources. I'll defer to community opinion on that subject. H1nkles (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would like to see more book references used, because good books are the best possible sources and there figure to be no shortage of them for the Olympics. Newspaper and magazine references are also fine, and this has quite a few of those. Of greater concern are two dead links, which are current numbers 37 (Samaranch's Legacy:Controversy, Corruption) and 79 (Games hit by crisis over Iran-Israel contest). Finding replacements for these should be simple enough. I'll be around soon to offer a full review. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the links in question and will do a full review of all the links to update accessdates and make sure they are all sound. H1nkles (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object article needs more info about national perception of Olympics. A lot of countries try and win to prove that their political system is better [communists], and how countries view the Olympics and national pride, showing off their country and so forth. At the moment it only includes the extreme stuff like the 1936 games. Also if preferable, I think grabbing a general interest Olympic book, or just on google books will get you a lot of this info and should be easily subbed and improve the article. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have massaged the "Politics" subsection to broaden the subject in order to include Communist use of the Olympics for political gain. It is tricky to cover this subject in a summary fashion. I've also added a more general paragraph regarding the current trend of athletes competing for one country while living in another and the impact on national pride when an athlete (especially from a developing country) succeeds at the Olympics. I've added three book references to help augment the lack of print references. I will continue to look for more. Please see if this addresses your concerns. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to track down a few more book citations to augment the credibility of the article. H1nkles (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this article needs extensive MoS cleaup; I left some sample edits, but there's much more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've performed scads of fixes per your recommendations. I also left a question on your talk page re: one of your recommendations. I knew the article needed someone with encyclopedic knowledge of the MoS to review it. I hope it is now improved. H1nkles (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to those who have done copy editing and lent their knowledge on hard spacing. I appreciate your contributions! H1nkles (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome. I'm doing what I can, as best as I know. It's about time this fundamental article gets its star back. Parutakupiu (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • The first thing I noticed was the large number of external links. Are a dozen of them really needed?
  • Done
  • Ancient Olympics: "Heracles, being his eldest son". I would remove "being" since it throws off the flow somewhat. The sentence is fine without it.
  • Done
  • "From then on, the Olympic Games quickly became very important throughout ancient Greece." Again, a word can be removed to make the prose tighter; this time that word is "very".
  • Done
  • "featuring sport events alongside ritual sacrifices..." Should "sport" be "sporting"?
  • Done
  • "It was renamed Wenlock Olympian Games in 1859". Add "the" before Wenlock?
  • Done
  • "He presented these ideas during the first Olympic Congress of the newly created International Olympic Committee, which was held. Somewhat awkward since the first thing before "which" is the committee, not the Congress as intended. Perhaps flip the two?
  • Done
  • "On the last day of the congress". Is the last word intended as a proper noun? If so, capitalize.
  • Done
  • 1896 Games: Another "very" in the section that doesn't need to be there.
  • Done
  • My biggest concern is the pictures. Two of them (Olympia and 1900 women's golf) are up for deletion, and the 2008 medals picture has a "reduction request" template. I'm no image expert, but a review is sorely needed for this particular part of the article. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the photos - I removed the Olympia photo. The 1900 women's golf one is tricky as the person nominating it for deletion did not put a reason for deleting it. There are a lot of photos in the article so I'm not beholden to it but I do like it as it emphasizes the role women played early on in the Olympic Movement. I'm no image expert either, is there someone else who could weigh in with an opinion on that photo? On the Olympic medals photo, there is a reduction request and I have found a smaller version of the photo but it isn't free and may be copyrighted. I'm leaning towards removing the photo just to be safe. H1nkles (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that User:Parutakupiu added a couple of photos to replace the Olympia and 1900 photo. I've deleted the Olympic medals photo until a proper one that meets all guidelines is available. H1nkles (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there hasn't been a large amount of activity here, I've come back for another round of comments.
  • "who even demanded Athens to host the Olympic Games on a permanent basis." A little awkward; I'd try "who even demanded that Athens host the Olympic Games on a permanent basis."
  • Done
  • Winter Games: "though they were only officially recognized by the IOC as such, in the following year." Remove the comma?
  • Done
  • Youth Games: Remove comma after "The Youth Olympic Games (YOG)".
  • Done
  • "The Youth Games will be shorter". Than what? See what I'm getting at here?
  • Done
  • Criticism: "with several members remaining on the committee for life." This sentence structure is known as a noun plus -ing, a hard-to-spot prose glitch. For more, including tips on how to fix it, see here.
  • Done
  • "The leadership of IOC presidents Juan Antonio Samaranch and Avery Brundage were especially controversial." Change "were" to "was" to make the tenses match. Also check "Samaranch's ties with the Franco regime in Spain has also been a source of criticism."
  • Done
  • I'd change "was" to "were" to signify a plural element (ties). Giants2008 (17-14) 23:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The scandal set off further reforms; changing the way host cities are selected to avoid further bribes." Make a semi-colon a regular colon.
  • Done
  • Meant to say comma; sorry about that. Because I messed up the comment, I'll fix it myself. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo captions need periods if they are full sentences. A few of these easily qualify.
  • Done
  • One disambiguation link found on the dab checker linked on the FAC page. There's a second, but it's crossed out; I assume that because it's closely related to the topic. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the link for Rostrum, I had removed it several weeks ago but apparently it had been relinked. I hope the edits meet with your approval. H1nkles (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Left more on the article's talk page. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • I'll work on replacing the webwinds cite, I think you're right it's probably not reliable. The IOA cite is from the International Olympic Academy sponsored by the University of Leeds, the article this cite references is well cited itself. I feel as though it is reliable though I would defer to consensus if there was significant disagreement.
  • Webwinds cite has been replaced iwth a book citation. H1nkles (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that it's basically a self-published source, so it needs to meet WP:SPS. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I'll look into a better source or removal of the statement. H1nkles (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed with more credible citation. H1nkles (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following refs need page numbers:
    • Current ref 3 (Young...)
  • Working on this one. Replaced Young reference with another book reference. H1nkles (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
  • I will address this. H1nkles (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you referring specifically to the references and not the notes? I want to make sure I'm addressing the right section. H1nkles (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: [I have not reviewed all of the material, and no doubt this has come up at some time in discussion of this article.] Why does the first sentence of the lead treat Olympics Games as a singular? The Olympic Charter treats the phrase as plural (example: "The Olympic Games are the exclusive property of the IOC which owns all rights and data relating thereto"). Not once does the charter have "Olympic Games is..."; nor does the entire site (www.olympic.org), as far as I can see. There is no grammatical or usage problem with a first sentence beginning like this: "The Olympic Games are an international multi-sport event...". I urge that the lead be changed accordingly.
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no flaw in your reasoning, it makes sense. I will make the change. H1nkles (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sillyfolkboy

  • Why is discussion of the languages used at the Olympics in the "Symbols" section. Wouldn't it be better as part of the "olympic movement" bullet points?
  • In the "Symbols" section why not include this image. I believe that the Olympic flame is more iconic than the flag or rings are at any rate. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In an effort to return this unusually trivial FAC to substance, I will object to the treatment of the ancient Games. Girginov and Parry is, on this subject, a tertiary source, and at least misleading. It has misled our article writers into several errors and omissions, which could all be fixed from a reliable secondary source on this subject. George Grote's History of Greece is well out of copyright, and should be available on the web.

  • There were at least three legendary foundings of Olympian games: that of Heracles, traditionally dated in his lifetime, around 1230 BC; that of Iphitus, traditionally dated around 850 BC, and that of Coroebus, traditionally dated 776 BC.
  • I did not include all three of the legends on the origin of the Games as I felt it delved deeper than necessary for this particular article. My attempt was to be summary in nature. I can expand it if you disagree with this rationale. H1nkles (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I updated the paragraph to include the reference to Coroebus in Grote. H1nkles (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no particular reason for believing any of these traditional dates. There appears to have been a list of 27 winners of the footrace in 672 BC, but that list may have been wrong, and there is no real reason to believe the early contests quadrennial.
  • 200 steps or 100 paces would be clearer than strides.
  • Oenomaus and Pelops only raced once; Oenomaus died.
  • The sacrifices to Zeus and to the hero Pelops were very different.
    Aren't the differences in the sacrifices a bit more detail than is appropriate for this length of summary? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably. It would be preferable not to link them together at all; the sacrifice to Zeus is central, as the prize of the original footrace - Pelops can be reduced to "and other ritual" in this summary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As reading Pausanias should have told you, many of the statues of Olympians were not honors; cheats had to buy their own statue, as a fine.
  • The games did not decline in importance after the Roman conquest. Nero had them held out of sequence during his trip to Greece, so he could win them.
  • The last Olympian games were held in 393, but the relation between this and the decree of Theodosius (of 391) is conjecture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, actually games were held according to Grote v. 9 (p. 34–36) as late as 384 BC. H1nkles (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last Olympic games were the 193rd Olympiad of 393 AD; that's why the number is no longer divisible by 4. Grote is no longer a source here, but there are many others: Bury's Later Roman Empire should do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a couple of sources including Bury who list Theodosius as the one who abolished the Olympic Games. A History of Greece by Finlay and Tozer (p. 283–284) list it's demise in 393 though they say it was the 293rd olympiad. I'll make some changes to reflect a more balanced view of the history. Thanks for pointing it out. H1nkles (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will look into these concerns and the reference suggested in the hopes of correcting any fallacies that may exist. H1nkles (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as previous reviewer. This is an excellent article, and you have made great improvements. Reywas92Talk 23:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article is in good shape, deserves its FAC status back. igordebraga ≠ 00:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone reviewed the images yet? I'm waiting on this before offering my support. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Haven't had a "professional" photo review though in response to a previous critique the photos have been reviewed, two have been removed a several have been added or replaced with better photos. H1nkles (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I think this is a good article, I do spot one semi-major issue: recentism. The word "Beijing" appears 27 times in the article, and 3 consecutive pictures are from the last Beijing Olympic Games. This should probably be amended. Best, 131.111.216.140 (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • I disagree with any perceived image recentism. These are probably some of the only free ones we have. I think I can safely bet that not many Wikipedians took their digital cameras to the Olympics prior to Beijing. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is well written. However, I think it would be nice to have some kind of Olympic template on the top, with links to Summer games, Winter games, Ancient Olympics, lists of venues etc. At present, there is only a picture of the flag there so it looks a bit empty. --Tone 14:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check the article now. An info box has been added per your suggestion. If you feel as though more should be added please let me know. Thank you to Scorpion0422 for this addition. H1nkles (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I was thinking of something like this. Nice job. --Tone 19:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (for the moment) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think this is an article that received lots of work, to yield a nice and well-written article. Thanks to the author(s), especially since this is such a huge topic! But, sorry to say that, I think it is far from FA status. My main concerns are comprehensiveness (an FA criterion), and balance. I reviewed the lead section thoroughly, and found a number of points where I think improvements are needed. In particular, the lead is fairly undeveloped in that it covers only half the article. From a cursory reading of the rest of the article I get the same feeling, that there are good ideas, but better structuring, both of individual sections, and of the article in general is possible (and necessary). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article is somewhat unbalanced. For example, the opening and closing ceremony sections together are longer than the entire sports section. The opening section is merely a copy of (a long part of) the relevant subarticle. I suggest trimming down that section and the closing section by at least 50%. For example the paragraph starting "The Olympic Charter requires the host nation's head of state to officially open an Olympic Games," is IMO not necessary, at least not in this length, to understanding the ceremony. Likewise "After all national delegations have entered the stadium, the president of the organizing committee makes a speech, followed by the IOC president's speech." is just long (and a bit boringly written).
  • Consider putting the symbols section and the ceremony section into one bigger section? For example, the lighting of the torch would very smoothly go over into the opening ceremony, right?
  • In the lead section, I miss a sharper statement such as "The Olympic games are the biggest sports event [in terms of ...]"
  • "Currently, the Olympic Games program consists of 33 sports, 52 disciplines and nearly 400 events." -- what do you mean by events? It's unspecific.
  • Sport section: try to give the section more coherence. The first paragraph talks about what sports have (never) been excluded, the last talks about (limitations) of numbers of sports. I'd restructure the par. so as to join these two pieces of information together. Also, I'm missing a sort of qualitative statement like (I'm inventing the facts) "the early games (around 1900 or so) featured 18 games, a number that gradually increased [but never decreased], to reach 28 in 2002".
  • Sports section: first it says about 400 events. Later that it was limited to 301 events (and does not tell that this number has been revised later).
  • Lead section: "were first revived" is redundant - remove first. I'm a bit worried about occasional over-details (e.g., "initiative of a French nobleman, Pierre Frédy, Baron de Coubertin", I would trim that down)
  • "The evolution of the Olympic Movement during the 20th century forced the IOC to adapt its own vision of the Games in several ways." -- what is the specific meaning of "its own vision" (as opposed to anybody else's vision). Also, this sentence seems too unspecific to convey any real meaning.
  • "each with a summer and winter version. " remove that.
  • "
  • "The Games encompass many rituals and symbols established during its beginning, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." -- consider rewording to "The Games encompass rituals and symbols such as opening, closing ceremonies, and medals"
  • "Despite the current complexity of the Games, the focus remains on the Olympic motto" -- that's an odd conjunction. Also, I wonder whose focus remains there, and why and in what specific sense?
  • The lead section fails to even mention the content of "host cities", "sports", "olympic movement" and "champions and medallists" sections! Really, the lead has to cover the whole article!
  • Host cities section: it provides little or no added value to the subarticle. I would remove the table, replacing by a qualitative prose-style overview, or adding a map(!) where the games were hosted.
  • "Youth Olympic Games": the section conveys the picture that this is just a slimmer version of the "senior" games. I suspect athletes have to be younger than ... years? Is this right?
  • "Olympic Movement": is this the official title? Somehow, by ol. movement, I understand something like the spirit of the people attending the games(?). If so, wikilinking would be good. From the content of the section, I would use the title "IOC" (this is also the main article you link to).
  • I think the article lacks a (at least brief) section about the bidding process. (I'd put that to the host cities).
  • Also lacking is a section on media reception and more generally, public reception. I feel this is a fairly important topic to cover. The Olympic games would not be what they are without the millions watching the games.
  • Also, a note on sponsoring etc., rights management of the pictures/videos etc. seems in order. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes Denote references that need subscriptions with format=registration required or something similar in the cite template (Ref 60, Encyclopedia Britannica). Don't link common geographical terms (such as continents or anglophone countries) per WP:OVERLINK. Watch out for redundancies and unnecessary vagueness such as "outside of" or "between various hospitals ". Dabs look fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Olympic_Games/archive2&oldid=1146671333"