Wikipedia:Peer review/Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics/archive1

Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have listed this article for peer review because I have been working on it towards the highest quality status. The history of this article includes two past reviews, one that awarded the B-Class status and another that awarded the Good Article status. Now, I am nominating the article for a new review looking forward the Featured Article status. Regards, Felipe Menegaz 00:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

1. It is—
• (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
• (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
• (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
• (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
• (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
• (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
• (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
• (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
3. Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Comments by Casliber

Hello Felipe and good luck. Have a look at some of my edits and see what I have done. Part of making prose elegant is reducing unneeded words. Have a look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a to see if you can make some more changes yourself - I found TOny1's page to be very helpful when improving my writing. The article is promising. More later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick replies! I saw the Tony1's tips before, but my English is limited, is not fluent or even professional. So I asked this Peer review, to have a help with gramatical aspects. Well, tommorow I will read the entire page "How to satisfy Criterion 1a". Regards; Felipe Menegaz 02:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I wondered how your English was :) (don't worry, my Portuguese is zero) I will drop by later, as I am a bit busy today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I could not read the page... :) Felipe Menegaz 03:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Andrwsc

This is a well-done article, and a good example for other Olympic bid articles. I haven't done a detailed grammar or MOS check, but have only looked at the layout and content. My only concerns are with the collapsible tables and icon usage. I think they might be considered clever and visually appealing at first glance, but have accessibility problems once you look below the surface. For example, I would rather see the tables always displayed instead of hidden by default. This is especially vexing for the venue table, as there are two layers of "show/hide". This makes the information more difficult to find, and perhaps is detrimental to the printed layout of the page. With respect to the icons, I think they should not be used instead of text labels, but (perhaps) in addition to them if necessary. The icons are so small that it is not readily clear what they represent. For example, the table at 2008 Summer Olympics#Calendar is much easier to read because the name of each sport is shown for each table row, with a simple bullet representing event(s) on each day. I think that is much more preferable than a row of identical icons with no text label at all. I appreciate the effort you have put into those icons and those tables, but I think simplicity is preferred in this case. I hope this feedback is useful. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you detail what we should do for each of the templates?

Ok, sure. Comments are embedded below:

• {{Rio de Janeiro bid evaluation for the 2016 Summer Olympics}}
  1. No need to make it hidden by default.
  2. Use of bold and italic typeface is contrary to WP:Manual of Style (text formatting). The style choice of bolding the first letter of a word is especially strange.
  3. The little pie-chart icons don't help very much. Most numbers are within a relatively narrow range (~60–80%), so small differences between them are indiscernable. I think the table of numbers would be more effective with just the text values for each score at 100% font size, instead of using 90% font size with the icons.
  4. I think the column headings should wikilink to Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics instead of Chicago, for example.
  • Replies:
  1. No need, but it is an aesthetic choice. Visually, it is better hidden because keeps the text continued. We could ask the opinion of others.
     • I think it is not just an aesthetic choice. You are using a navigation box style—indeed, using {{Navbox with columns}} for implementation—for a table of data inline within the article. I think this is potentially confusing, and certainly inconsistent with standard navbox usage. It is also an accessibility problem, which is why collapsible sections within article text are discouraged by WP:Accessibility#Scrolling and collapsible sections. I strongly suggest using a standard wikitable for this data. In fact, a sortable table would be rather useful, as you could see which categories each candidate city scored best and worst in. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  2.  Done
  3. As per #1, it is an aesthetic choice. Visually, it is better to provide disparities. About the font size, if we change the number's size, we need to change the theme's size.
     • I agree that it is better "to provide disparities", but I disagree that the pie-chart icons accomplish that goal. As I was thinking about this, it occured to me that what is most important when browsing this set of numbers is to highlight the relative "winners" and "losers" in each category. For example, highlighting the highest and lowest scores in each table row (by colour and/or icon) would be far more effective than what is displayed now. I just don't see a lot of value in very subtle pie charts that differ by a few pixels for numbers mostly in the same range. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  4.  Done

• {{Rio de Janeiro bid schedule for the 2016 Summer Olympics}}
  1. No need to make it hidden by default.
  2. Dates should not be wikilinked.
  3. The style used at {{2008 Summer Olympics Calendar}} is the consensus for Olympic articles, and I see no benefit in creating a different style here. The bullets should not be wikilinked to event article stubs yet, but the overall colour scheme and style should be used as it is clearer than a row of tiny, unlabelled icon images for each sport.
  • Replies:
  1. As per Evaluation #1.
  2.  Done
  3. I wondered if we can create a template visually harmonious with the other two and that uses the same scheme of {{2008 Summer Olympics Calendar}}.

• {{Rio de Janeiro bid venues for the 2016 Summer Olympics}}
  1. No need to make it hidden by default (remove both layers).
  2. I think the over-ride of redlink colour for venue article wikilinks is a bad idea.
  3. I know it is a lot of work, but I would prefer a map with more detail and scale. From these images, I can only tell which venues are clustered together, and which relative direction they are to each other, but that's it. The dark green image colour is distracting. A better example might be File:Beijing 2008 olympic venue.svg, which includes the whole city on a single image, with some detail for roads, parks, etc.
  4. Again, it is an accessibility problem to use an unlabelled icon image as a substitute for text to list each sport.
  • Replies:
  1. As per Evaluation #1.
  2. I will create the article Venues of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics after try to put Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics at the FA status.
     • But in the meantime, I am certain that embedding <span style="color: #006fb0;"> within wikilink brackets, to disguise redlinks, is contrary to user preferences for WP:Link color. They should be removed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. I tried to create a map like this, but I couldn't. So I did what I could.
  4. Waiting for Schedule #3.

Although I have seen the comments, I need something more detailed to make changes. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 23:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope my feedback is useful. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It was. Regards; Felipe Menegaz 00:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And if we remove the templates from the article and create independent pages with more detailed lists? We could use {{See also}}, {{Further}} or {{Details}} to link the articles. Felipe Menegaz 17:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but to be honest, I'm not sure that the topic is big enough to warrant multiple summary-style articles in this encyclopedia. I see that you have created multiple articles in Category:Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, but this is unique among all the articles in Category:Olympic Games bids. I think there might be some concern that there is WP:Undue weight given to this topic. In the Olympics WikiProject, we've never discussed the need for individual articles on host city venues, etc. for past Games, let alone for candidate host cities. If you merged all content into this single article, that would obviate the need for single-transclusion templates (which are discouraged) and simply use wikitable markup directly in the article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

My goal is to make Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics a Featured topic. The first step is to make this a Featured article. For this I produced a big text, wich in one of the previous reviews has been criticized for being too heavy, not for being detailed. For that were created three other articles to be future Featured articles: Finance of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, Infrastructure of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics and Politics of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, which were grouped the largest possible number of similar themes (revenue, budget, financing, government support, popular support, legal aspects, immigration laws, transport, accommodation, security, technology, health, etc.). We can not merge all the content in the main article. After this, I plan to create three more lists: Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, Schedule of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics and Venues of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. After your comments on the templates of the original article, I thought then only use the lists and make them Featured lists, eliminating the templates. And I see no problem about that. WP:Undue weight discusses excessive emphasis to a minority point of view, which is completely different from this topic. I think that the WP:OLYMPICS would like to see all the other articles in Category:Olympic Games bids with the same emphasis... Felipe Menegaz 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I created Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics to provide an idea of what I am talking about. The list is incomplete and the text will be reworded. Felipe Menegaz 22:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)