This peer review discussion has been closed.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want this article to nominate for Featured List, before that i need substantial suggestions and feedback.

Thanks, Bill william compton^Talk 05:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from StrPby (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The medal table is based on information provided by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and is consistent with IOC convention in its published medal tables." I'm pretty sure the IOC isn't in charge of the Asian Games. You mean the OCA.

    Y OCA is a continental association recognized by the IOC, so it also follows its rules. Refer this, its a constitution of OCA, where several times this thing is mentioned.

    That is not my point. The medal table is based on data provided by the OCA, not IOC, and you should not state otherwise. It is consistent with IOC convention in GSB but the information isn't provided by the IOC. Separate the two if necessary. StrPby (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Line has been removed

• • The second source gives a number of 3,411 participating athletes; the article has way more, following the first source. Why the discrepancy? Should both numbers be mentioned?

     Done 3,411 were athletes and 4,595 was a count of athletes and delegates. I think we don't need to mention officials, so including only athletes number.

  • Source for fencing and bowling's removal?

     Provided

  • General grammar ("these Asiad"?)
  • "IX Asiad"? The official OCA page calls it the "9th Asian Games", not the "IX Asiad"; the official logo has it as "IX Asian Games". Let's not make up names.

    Y May be you're not familiar with this but Asian Games also known as Asiad, please refer Constitution of OCA.

    I'm aware. That's not my point. The official name isn't "IX Asiad" and you should not state that it's also known as the "IX Asiad" as that's not what it's known as. Alternatively, please find a source for the exact term "IX Asiad" and I'll drop this point. StrPby (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 I've made a note with references

• • "China made its presence felt in the sporting world by dethroning Japan as the top medalist." Seems pretty POV to me.

    China excelled Japan in gold medals and made its presence felt in the sporting world. Is it OK? China exceeded Japan in gold medals, is it okay?

    It is ridiculous to suggest that China "made its presence felt in the sporting world" through this, as this was after all an Asian Games. I see no reason to restate that China surpassed Japan in terms of gold medals; this is made amply clear earlier when it's stated that Chinese athletes won the most gold medals. Remove the whole line. StrPby (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Line has been removed

Comments from The Rambling Man

• "time; Fencing and" no need for capital letter after a semi-colon.

 Removed

• Lead image could be bigger and needs a full stop in the caption.

 Done

• "China only joined the Games in 1974 " would prefer something like "China's first appearance..." or something.

 Done "China first competed at the Asian Games.."

• "in the fifth spot" not sure you need "the" here.

 Removed

• "athlete's oath and won two silver medals in Athletics." what's the athlete's oath? And no need to have a capital A for Athletics here.

Typographical error its "Athletes Oath", which is like Olympic Oath.

• I can't see a yellow circle on that map. Choose an entirely different colour please.

 Done Changed the color to red.

• Don't mix date formats in the references.

 Done I always use "middle endian forms" (starting with the month), but it's an India related article so I've to repeatedly change the format; missed out some times, but now all the date formats are same.

• Use en-dashes in the reference titles please.

Please give example.

I've done it for you in this edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now i get it.

• Ref 7 is a single page so shouldn't have pp.

 Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll make a few comments that I see mostly related to writing rather than formatting.

• This sentence, With a total of 153, athletes from both China and Japan won the most total medals. changes subjects half-way through. The number of athletes and the most total medals really don't belong in the same sentence. Also the comma should be after athletes not 153, but really it should be two sentences.

Athletes from both China and Japan won the most total medals, with 153. Is it OK?

• Japan had won the greatest number of medals in previous editions of the Games. In every previous edition?

 Reference has been provided

• China excelled Japan in gold medals and made its presence felt in the sporting world. "Excelled" is not the right word to use, perhaps, "China 'exceeded' Japan's gold medal total...." But really the first part of this sentence is redundant and unless you can quantify the second part of the sentence I would suggest removing. It's hard to support the idea that their results in the Asians Games of 1982 made their presence felt in the sporting world.

 Done I've provided a reference which describes how China succeeded in sporting world. Also 1982 Asian Games were the first multi-sport platform where China led the medal tally.

• Through 2010, China would be top medalist in all succeeding Asiads. Wording is a bit awkward. I would reword thus, "China has secured the top medal spot in every Asiad since 1982."

 Done

• The last couple of sentences in the lead are confusing, it says that both North Korea and India finished fifth. Can you clarify this?

 Done North Korea won more gold than India, but its total medal (G+S+B) count was less (so North Korea finished 5th in total medals and 4th in gold meal count). I've corrected the ambiguity.

• You indicate that the information is from the IOC but I don't see any reference to the IOC in your References section. That should be addressed.

 Done Although I've provided a reference, which clears the priority of gold over silver and bronze in medal table, but this issue is more clearly described in Olympic medal table and nowhere this is referenced to IOC, check the whole list.

• That's it for me, I hope that helps. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good so far. Questions:

• What is "conducted the athletes oath"?

 Done Changed to "took the athlete's oath on behalf of all competitors at the Games ".

Pretty sure the correct grammar is athletes' oath. StrPby (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The apostrophe is a good catch...but what is hte athletes' oath? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's where one designated athlete from the host nation swears on the OCA flag (Olympic flag at the Olympics) on behalf of all athletes to compete fairly without cheating etc, like the Olympic oath. StrPby (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please decide what would be correct.

Ah ok. maybe a link then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it according to StrPby, but i still have some doubt over using athletes', as you can see here and here also, the attribute is Athlete's Oath, so please consider again about the most appropriate usage.

Giants2008 comments – Responding to a talk-page request for a review. Not bad, but some issues remain to be sorted out:

• "The number of the participating countries was the greatest in Asian Games history." Removing the second "the" would make this a little tighter.

 Removed

• A comma would be useful after the parenthetical bit in the last sentence of the lead.

 Done

• Medal table: No need to link National Olympic Committee here, since it was linked in the lead. I wouldn't mind in a long article, but this is a list of moderate size and I don't think the repetition is helpful.

 Removed

• The last sentence is a long run-on. How about "In gymnastics events many shared medals were awarded; three gymnasts in men's pommel horse and two in men's ring tied for first place. Three in men's parellel bars and two gymnasts each in men's floor, women's uneven bar, and women's floor tied for second place; also two gymnasts tied for third place in men's vault." Note a few grammatical improvements were put in the middle of that, though I'm sure what's there can be improved upon.

How about this In gymnastics events many shared medals were awarded; three-way tie in men's pommel horse and tie in men's ring for first place, meant that no silvers were awarded for those events. Three gymnasts in men's parallel bars and two each in men's floor, women's uneven bar and women's floor tied for second place, thus no bronzes were awarded in these events, also no silver was awarded for men's parallel bars; tie for third in men's vault meant that two bronze medals were awarded.

I've added more information in it, please modify the language if you want.

• In the note, "the" should be added before Indian Government and Sports Authority of India.

 Added

• En dashes needed for page ranges in refs 6, 17, and 18.

 Added

• Refs 5, 10, and 11 should have the publisher in italics, since they're printed publications.

 Done

• What makes Sports123.com a reliable source?

 Source Changed Although you would find Sports123.com, most widely used source on Asian Games related articles, but as you questioned its reliability (which I don't know how to prove), I changed the source with Doha Asian Games' official website's archives, which are completely reliable.

• The Mercy Kuttan image is problematic since it is from a newspaper scan. The license given on the photo page could easily be incorrect, depending on what the regulations are for things published in India (it doesn't meet U.S. requirements, since it would have to have published before 1923, most likely). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Removed.

First of all, I'd like to thank all the participants, who gave their precious time in this peer review, you people are awesome in your work and very generous in helping other, specially some naïve like me; no words can express my gratitude. I'm assuming that I've resolved all the comments and queries raised by each reviewer. So, I guess now is the time to nominate this article for Featured List status. Bill william compton^Talk 17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]