Talk:Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre freestyle/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 00:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Stevie fae Scotland (talk · contribs) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will hopefully get a few comments done tonight but should have the full review complete by this time tomorrow. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stevie fae Scotland, thank you very much for your review! I will address your preliminary points below. IAWW (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

Prose looks good. Although you don't need to source anything in the lead, it would need to be sourced elsewhere so (other than sourcing it in the infobox) this is probably the best solution for sourcing the info in the first par.
Per MOS:LEAD, add English variety and date style tags.
I know it might be obvious but I would add "seconds" to the Winning time section of the infobox. It's unclear for readers who are unfamiliar with the topic if the unit isn't included.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added English variety and date style tags, though I couldn't see where in MOS:LEAD it says these should be added to all articles.

Regarding the lead citation, I couldn't find a good spot to list the location in the body, so thought it would be best left in the lead. MOS:LEADCITE doesn't seem to directly prohibit this, but I would be happy to change it if you deem it important. Though, that would mean changing it for every article in this topic…

I added seconds to the winning time. IAWW (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was agreeing with you that the lead was the best place to source that so I'm happy with that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good :) IAWW (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

I would add the unit of time after 21.07 again, there's more info about how to refer to these at MOS:NUM.
Dressel was not at his best. This is a bit words to watchy and I can't see it in the source. I would rephrase or remove this.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cut "was not at his best". I definitely shouldn't have been in wikivoice, and I think it better to cut it than attribute it to the source which says he was "a bit off". IAWW (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification

Looks good. I'd personally like a bit more info on who qualified but, overall, I think it meets Criteria 3 and anything more would be more of a featured article consideration.

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I didn't add it because saw it as a comprehensiveness rather than broadness requirement, and I would rather spend my time bringing the other articles on swimming at the 2024 Olympics up to standard rather than worrying about meticulous comprehensiveness. IAWW (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heats

Per MOS:NUM, don't start a sentence with a number. Either use Ten or find a way to rephrase the first sentence.
Is the seeding significant? If not, I wouldn't use "claimed" as it suggests there's some sort of advantage to be won.
Is there a reason that no one from the first five heats qualified? Other than them being too slow I mean, like a seeding system or was it totally random?
Do we know why Shane Ryan did not start?

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a slight advantage, the seeding decides which lane you go in, in the final. The middle lanes are considered faster I believe, though in sprint events this is somewhat in contention.

I was able to find a source for Shane Ryan's DNS, which I missed during my original research. I added a sentence about it to the qualification section. Good catch because this is definitely notable and interesting. IAWW (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semifinals

Per MOS:NUM, numbers less than 10 are usually written out in letters.
Once you've named swimmers in prose outside the lead, you don't need to repeatedly link to them or repeat their full names. Florent Manaudou for example is linked in the background, semifinals and final sections and has his full name written out once more as well. After the first time, it should just be Manaudou unlinked. There's more than one person you've done this with so I'd read through and double-check (this is only the prose and not tables/infobox).
Do we know the reason that Grousset withdrew?

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did the MOS:NUM fixes, and reworked the links. I decided to only link each thing once, including the lead, since it's such a short article. I also linked the countries to their performances at the Games. Unfortunately I cannot find a source for why Grousset withdrew. IAWW (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final

You've mentioned Crooks being third with 5m to go, could you include where he finished in prose?

Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added IAWW (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Spotcheck on source 8 (first table) brought up a 404 error. I got the same error for the other two results tables. Unsure if the link has moved or if the pdf has been removed from the IOC website. Could you check or do you have an archive link (eg- from Wayback Machine) that could be added?

Ah, that is typical of these Olympic sites. I actually changed this source after I nominated for GA, and forgot to add an archive link. Fortunately somebody seems to have added all these reports to the Internet Archive so I was able to add it. IAWW (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck on source 9 verifies McEvoy as fastest but not his time. Also, no source for The swimmers with the best 16 times in the heats advanced to the semifinals. I know that's fairly common knowledge and may well be resolved by fixing source 8. Otherwise, is there a competition guide or similar that could be used to verify that?

I added source 8 to verify the time. I didn't add a source for the best 16 times under WP:BLUE reasoning, but I just added a source to that and all the other articles in this series I have nominated for GA. IAWW (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. For articles I've nominated for GA, I've not always known where the line is with regard to WP:BLUE so I appreciate that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I added an image of McEvoy in 2015. That was the most relevant image I could find. There are some images of the pool, but they were all take when it was set up for water polo. IAWW (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this one when looking at the page of the arena, would it work? File:2024 Swimming at the 2024 Summer Olympics - 2024-07-27 - 3.jpg Might be an idea for the infobox, just a thought. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.	See comments above
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Will complete source review and copyright check in the morning (6/2/25) (apologies that this has taken a little longer than originally hoped) Spotcheck on 5, 8, 9, 17 and 25. A couple of issues to resolve, see above. Happy with the reliability of sources which are either subject specialist news organisations, national news organisations or sports federations.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Checked with Earwig
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There was one reversion to an edit in December to restore the article to the way it was nominated but there haven't been any edit wars or major content alterations since it was nominated
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.	Is it possible to add an image of the gold medal winner or perhaps the venue? No worries if there are none available.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I am happy to pass it as is. If that image I have suggested works, then do add it but I don't see any need to hold it up for that. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]