Talk:Open water swimming at the 2015 World Aquatics Championships – Team/GA1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 14:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dragonhawk12 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- When there is a list of names, it should be alphabetized by last name. So, the swimmers in the "results" table should be alphabetized, as well as "Christian Reichert and Isabelle Härle were also part of the team that won the event in 2013".
- A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Grammar and spelling looks good. I fixed the wording in a sentence.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Does Germany need to be wikilinked in the further information section? It is already wikilinked in the article.
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- The references are laid out correctly. I particularly like the links of the quotations in the "further information" section. The link dispenser flagged no issues.
- B. 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):
- See Notes
- C. It contains no original research:
- No original resource. All claims are backed up by the sources.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig gave me at most a 9.1% similarity, but that was because of titles and names.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Waiting to see if anything else could be added (I'll look through the sources to check if anything could be added).
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- suggestions in the "notes" section
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Doesn't go into unnecessary detail.
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- The article doesn't lean towards one viewpoint than another. All claims about groups commenting on the event are sourced.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No edit wars present
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- No images present (besides the flags, I suppose)
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Hello! As a thanks for helping through the June backlog, I will review this article (This just so happens to help with the Developing Countries WikiContest too!). Before I forget to mention it, I will do a source spot-check of every source. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 03:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you very much @Dragonhawk12 for your review and in-depth spot check! I have addressed all your issues so far and hope you find my changes and responses satisfactory. IAWW (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- All issues have been fixed, so I can pass this article! Congrats! Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 01:01, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Notes
Funny note: The DYK-helper says that the article only has 1 word and 0 characters. lol Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 03:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
On a first lookthrough:
- This article looks pretty short, but I saw your comments on the Open water swimming at the 2013 World Aquatics Championships – Team GA review, and I agree with your points as well. Just to double check, is there any information on who was predicted to win, what other teams felt about the competition, or what the media thought about the event? Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 03:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Looks good Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 00:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
Spot check
- 1 -
Can you give me the page numbers that back up the claims in the article?All fixed
- 2 -
I don't see where the source backs up the claim "The time it took the last member of the team to complete the course determined the team's time, which determined the finishing positions as in a time trial".Fixed
- 3 - All good
- 4 - All good
- 5 - All good
- 6 - All good
- 7 You could mention that "This was the first awarding ceremony of the FINA World Championships that had no third-time finisher on the podium".
- 8 All good, but I'm wondering why the claim "Germany won gold, defending their title with a time of 55:14.4" doesn't cite this source.
- 9 - All good
- There are no issues with souring anymore. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 00:57, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
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.