Talk:Quietly Confident Quartet

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. One particular sentence popped out as symbolizing the primary problems: "The Australian team was for the event was quite a young and inexperienced quartet." The sentence is clunky and awkward ("was for the event was"?) as well as a tad POV ("quite a young and inexperienced quartet"). If it was just this sentence I'd fix it and move on but it's systemic. Concerns addressed

   B. MoS compliance:

   No complaints.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   References seem in order.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   No issues with the source material.

   C. No original research:

   No OR concerns.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   No concerns about scope.

   B. Focused:

   No concerns about scope.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Again, I have some concerns that this is being written as if to laud these swimmers. Concerns addressed.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable as a rock.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The lack of images was immediately noticeable.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Same as above.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold until concerns are addressed. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The members of the quartet were between 17 and 23 years of age. Only two members of the quartet had prior Olympic experience. For these type of events, countries are usually represented by athletes who have competed in multiple Olympic Games. Perhaps this should have been mentioned in the article. Could you explain why you felt "quite a young and inexperienced quartet" was advocating a point a view? The only problem I see is with the word "quite", but it isn't something that reeks of POV. Also, could you provide other examples of how the prose is unsuitable for an encyclopedia? Nishkid64 (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right; upon a second read I think I held this article to too high a standard for a GA. However, I would like to see at least one image before this is promoted. It's highly unusual to have pictureless GAs; the only exception that I know of was Nevada-tan because of extenuating circumstances. Anyways, shouldn't be too hard. Good luck! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to continue pointing out specific or general prose concerns, I'll look at them. I fixed the last one. Although it may seem as though I am pumping up the swimmers - I guess this is from the part where I was talking about how young and unexperienced they were and how they were unlikely to be win, I did this to show how large a surprise it was that they did win. It was also pointed out the US was much faster, except that they boycotted, so I don't think it could be said that hte article was glorifying them. The article also points out that the swimmers had disciplinary problems, which is also not a positive thing. As for the image, there are none that would be free, as these people are active 25 years ago and no free ones could be made as they are no longer public images. I also note that the only picture of them in the books, is of them standing on the podium (same image repeated). Unfortunately I can't see how a case for FU can be made in this case, since the "significantly enhances the understanding" is not the case, since it only tells us what their face looks like and such depictions are discouraged in teh image policy. If it was an iconic picture of a self-immolation like thich Quang Duc, that would be fine. Although in FAC, an article is a priority, in GAC, if there isn't a free pic of a recent person, then that is usually ignored. eg, see the list on TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) and his userpage, particularly the recent sportspeople, or just look in the sports section of WP:GA and look at the modern bios where copyright photos are yet to go PD. A lot do not have pictures, especially the guys who have retired so we can't take a pic, but aren't old enough for PD. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right and have made some excellent points. I'm passing the article despite the lack of images because of 1) your arguments and 2) overlooking the images (which does seem relatively minor in this particular case), the article is indeed GA-worthy. Congratulations on another GA! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit skeptical of the name, which I've never heard before. It sounds like a deliberate play on the "Oarsome Foursome", but that nickname did not exist until 1992 (maybe 1990). Did the nickname really exist in 1980? Is it mentioned in the 1986 reference? Peter Ballard (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting more and more skeptical about the name. The only google hits are Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. There is no mention on other sites where you might expect to see it, e.g. Olympics retrospecitives, or sites promoting Mark Tonelli or Neil Brooks as speakers. If the name does not have common use, then Wikipedia should not be using it either, and the article should be renamed. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Page 234. Tonelli coined the name. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In which book or books? Is there evidence that the name is widely used? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Howell book repeatedly. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it used in the other two books (Andrews, Gordon)? Peter Ballard (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Andrews book under Tonelli's entry also uses QC. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 08:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In what context? Did it give that as the name of the team, or only that it was occasionally used?

The lack of any mention from official sites of Tonelli and Brooks is pretty compelling. (There's an entire book by Tonelli online at http://www.marktonelli.com/production/marktonelli/html/author.html with no mention of the term). In my opinion, It demonstrates that "Quietly Confident Quartet" is not the most common name for the team, and I believe the article should be renamed to something like "Australian 1980 Mens 4 x 100 Medley Relay Team". Peter Ballard (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quietly Confident Quartet. 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/20110714040152/http://www.marktonelli.com/downloads/mark_tonelli_book.pdf to http://www.marktonelli.com/downloads/mark_tonelli_book.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)