This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Azerbaijan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Chess Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's sport Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:42nd Chess Olympiad/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR  17:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Good quality prose, follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   References check out, sources appear reliable. Assume GF for off line sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   NPOV

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Correctly licensed and tagged.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article's attention to detail is impressive. I couldn't find any issues relating to its prose or sources. It is well written and comprehensive so it meets the GA criteria. JAGUAR  14:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now - the board prize medals are missing! First place on each board is given in the article, but in fact medals were awarded for 1st, 2nd and 3rd on each board.[1] It's also not referenced how those medals are awarded. This is one of the most important awards for the event, and quite a startling omission. Adpete (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, obviously I can fix that myself, and I probably will. But I wanted to highlight how a GA review can miss the obvious. Adpete (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adpete: Please pay attention that this is the main article about the event with summary of the results. The information you're referring to can be found in the articles on the open and women's event, respectively. I really don't think there is that much necessity on including a greater level of detail in the main article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 42nd Chess Olympiad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111023012852/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17642 to http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/17642

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current text: "The number of registered teams set a record of 180 teams representing 175 countries, however 10 of these did not arrive so the actual participation was 170 teams. The women's event was contested by 142 teams from 138 countries, leaving 38 teams from 37 countries participating in the open event only."

Why is not mentioned in the text how many actual participating teams (134) were in the women's event?
Bob.v.R (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]