Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012 Summer Olympics bids

2012 Summer Olympics bids

Self-nomination – This article is under the scope of the Olympics WikiProject, of which I am a member. Yet I only started to contribute to its improvement after a peer-review request was open for it, by another member. Since then, I've been the main editor and I believe this article has reached a very high level of information and, in general, it follows the style guidelines and the criteria needed to reach featured status. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Since I was one of the editors who got the article up to GA status, I'll abstain from voting, but will just comment and say that the article is a great overview of the 2012 Olympic bids candidate cities, like London and Paris, and of the progression of the bid in general. In all, the article is well sourced and contains a whole bunch of encyclopedic information in a logically progressive and flowing way. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

JHMM13

• Comment. I participated in the peer review and I am currently copyediting the entire article. It has shades of poor prose and layout here and there. On the whole, this is a very visually pleasing and informative article that has a lot of potential. However, a subject like this needs a little more referencing that it currently has. I'll try to highlight specific "trouble spots" that you might want to address:
  • "They were granted the right to use Olympic symbols and the label "Candidate City" (or "Ville Candidate") in their campaign literature." This sentence should have a citation to the official IOC rules regarding this.
    •  Done, with rephrasing. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Originally, London was seen lagging behind Paris by a considerable margin, however this started to change with the appointment of Sebastian Coe as new head of London 2012, on May 19, 2004." This sentence needs a reference if it is not covered by your wrongc ref.
    •  Done. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "After the Games, the East London region will have of one of Europe's largest urban parks created in decades and will be home to the Olympic Institute, a centre for sports medical centre and a place to study the Olympic ideals." This sentence is hard to rework considering I don't really know the details. In general, could you try to get the fluff out of these cit bids sections? Make them read like a Wall Street Journal report, not an IOC bid pamphlet ;-D.
    • Well, I didn't write these bid summaries, but I'll do what I can. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      •  Done and referenced that "largest urban park" part. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The bid committee also proposed the London Paralympic Games, which would be as important as the Olympic Games." Same thing here. "As important as the Olympic Games?" According to whom? Who says the Olympic Games are important or not important? This phrasing has to go unless it's specifically stated in the official literature of the London bid in which case you'll have to put quotes around it and mention who said it from a NPOV.
    •  Done, I simply deleted it as I couldn't find refs nor did I find it necessary to stay. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "London was considered by many to be second favourite for the bid after Paris, but last-minute intense lobbying by the bid team in Singapore probably swung the votes in their favour." By whom were they considered? If you find a source for this sentence, I suggest rewording it to this: "...but intense lobbying by the bid team at the later stages of the bid process in Singapore swung the votes in their favour." Careful with words like probably. Remember: According to whom?
    •  Done Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Following the success of the bid there were further developments and announcements, including reactions to the security fears highlighted by the 7 July 2005 London bombings." This definitely needs a citation and you need to figure out where you want to put it. Don't leave it sitting out there on its own as a one-sentence paragraph. Avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
    •  Done, with rephrasing. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 05:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Paris's plan was very compact, with the placement of several sports in the Northern and Western Clusters and the Olympic Village between the two clusters." What do you mean by "compact?" I mean, I know what you mean, but reword it better and say that they were going to be placing several sports facilities in the...
    •  Done, with rephrasing. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The plan had gained high technical merit due to the city's well-maintained transport system, its ability to handle a peak number of tourists with plentiful accommodation, and very high support for the bid among Parisians and the nation. I understand the first two for technical "merit," which should be referenced, but I don't understand how the last one fits in. The whole thing needs to be referenced. If you have access to the IOC review of Paris, that would suffice, but be sure to say in the prose "...high technical merit from the IOC."
    •  Done Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Paris also planned to build temporary venues for some sports that can be moved and reused elsewhere after the Games (dubbed "pre-cycling")." Reword and reference this sentence.
    •  Done, with rephrasing. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Its rich cultural and Olympic heritage were also emphasized. All of these items placed Paris in a very strong position." Now don't get me wrong, I like this sentence because it is, obviously, true. However, my problem with it comes with the use of the words "rich cultural...heritage." Paris is a fantastic city with a rich cultural heritage, but the way you word it in this sentence makes it seem like the other cities didn't have this going for them. Reconsider it unless you can find a direct IOC review reference.
    •  Done, included it in the above copy-editing. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Madrid, Spain's capital city, beat out Seville to represent the country on the international stage." I'm sure it's easy to ref this one. It might be something people want to look into, so give them the news story.
    •  Done Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Madrid presented an above average bid, with almost all sports contested in three clusters, all within very close proximity of each other." I don't really get this sentence. What were the sports contested? How did that relate to the bidding process?
    •  Done, rephrased and fixed meaning. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The public transport infrastructure would have been able to accommodate the hundreds of thousands gathering in the capital, and this positive situation was coupled with the use of renewable energy and hydrogen vehicles." This sentence needs a reference and it needs clarification. Do other cities in the world not have renewable energy vehicles? I live right next to NYC and I know I've seen some driving around.
    •  Done, with rephrasing. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Madrid had also organised several high-quality European and World championships, accounting for the city's hosting experience. The bid gained resounding support among the city and national population and was helped with the support of former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, who was lobbying votes for the Madrid bid." These two sentences are POV and need citations and a reworking.
    •  Done Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "New York City was selected over San Francisco as the sentimental favourite during the United States competition, in 2002." Could you please reference the "sentimental" favorite part?
    •  Done, removed that NPOV (I didn't put it but I also didn't proofread it earlier) Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "The Olympic X Plan was the main concept proposed by the NYC2012 Bid team: two primary transportation lines would have strung the several individual clusters in Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn together." You have to really reconsider using so many colons. They can really begin to hurt prose if you overuse them. Was it at any point officially referred to as "NYC2012" or is this your shortening? You should call it by its full name or "the New York City bid." Why is "Bid" capitalized? Was this the entire plan?? If not, rework the whole section to make it flow better.
    •  Done, or I tried. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "By combining existing world-class facilities such as Madison Square Garden, Yankee Stadium, Central Park and the National Tennis Center, with new venues like the Brooklyn Arena, Greenbelt Olympic Equestrian Park, and Olympic Regatta Center, the city hoped to show that it was worthy of holding an event of such magnitude." Who says MSG is world-class? Can you provide wikilinks to these other proposed facilities? If not, can you reference them? Can you really consider Central Park a "facility?" Rework the rest of this section to remove fluff and stick to official terms. Don't just call the plan "X." Get more refs.
    •  Done, with major copy-editing. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Moscow's River Plan called for every single competition to be staged within city limits, making this one of the most compact proposals ever." Again the word compact I find weird in this context. The proposal wasn't compact, but the layout was, right?
    •  Done Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Despite the high support from the entire nation and invaluable experience..." This phrase in the Moscow section irks me. It sounds like more fluff from Moscow's concession speech.
    •  Done, with rephrasing it sounds less propaganda :P Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Similar allegations were repeated by several members of the Paris 2012 delegation." This needs a citation. In general with a section as controversial as this one, you need lots and lots of references that clearly point to verification of the claim. Right now there are scattered citations that have been used throughout the article and are probably general sources. Try to find the specific stories here and source them.
    •  Done, removed that unsourced sentence and added every possible reference to each statement. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Probably the most controversial move by London 2012 was its initiative to offer incentive packages for participating athletes (including free flights, economical accommodations, food and vouchers for long distance calling) and immediately after announcing it, London 2012 withdrew it. This U-turn was probably a result of President Jacques Rogge raising concerns because it could have started a "bidding war" if not withdrawn." Needs a citation.
    •  Done. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Paris 2012 also claimed that the lobbying by Tony Blair would have broken IOC rules." Needs a citation.
    •  Done. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "This was strongly denied by Downing Street." Needs a citation.
    •  Done... Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Shape up the whole last section just in general. I like the referencing you have done so far, but there are some one-sentence paragraphs in there and it's overall clumsy. Get someone to copyedit it once you've finished. Just one last note: perhaps you should have responded in the peer review before bringing it here and this list might have been shorter ;-). JHMM13 01:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • ... and  Done (check on this please). Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rmky87

• Comment Ref #42 is broken.--Rmky87 01:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)