Talk:Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEgypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 29, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
November 29, 2014Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 11, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Egyptian Olympic Committee distributed counterfeit Nike gear to its delegation to the 2012 Summer Olympics?
Current status: Good article

WP:3O[edit]

From the discussion at User talk:Raymarcbadz#Country at XXXX Season Olympics

Response to third opinion request:
I've gone through the previous discussion and conclude that such removal of content is unwarranted. Even though the intention was to simplify it, removing each section's description and adding it to the lead is against WP:LEAD. The lead section merely summarises what's written in the rest of the article, it doesn't provide a separate overview. This is a regular format followed by the pages listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Sports and recreation#Olympics.- Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time out to provide a third opinion and to move the discussion to the article talk page, where it probably belonged in the first place. Raymarcbadz, considering this third opinion, I'm going to restore the article to the state that it was prior to the removals. I realize that this might be judged as a little hasty, since WP:3O isn't meant to be a "decisive vote" process, but I also note that this article is currently listed at WP:GAN, which means that another impartial observer will eventually be reviewing this article and judging its suitably as a Good Article. This will therefore be another avenue through which you can voice your concerns and, as per the process, I will be happy to incorporate any changes suggested by the reviewer. Canadian Paul 17:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Canadian Paul, I have already observed the article again, and you restored the content for the purpose of an article review. I have several concerns to note for the following:
  • When you restored the article to the state before the mass removal, you almost forgot to add the competitors section. I counted the total number of athletes, including the distribution between men and women and among the sports they competed.
  • Some athletes in the article do not have their own pages yet, particularly in gymnastics and rowing. Is there a possible approach that you can add them, so that they might have one?
  • Why do you commonly use Sports Reference as a citation to the content that you already made? For the athletes, however, there's indeed a citation format for it. Seek this example.

I hope you might answer everything ASAP. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, as this is a volunteer project, I am under no obligation to respond to you "ASAP"; I will respond when and if I have the time. As to your specific questions:
  1. I did not "forget", almost or otherwise, to add the "competitors" section; I chose not to add it because I find it is, to a large degree, unsourced, redundant, and unencyclopedic. Most of it is just trivia that does little to complement the article. Considering that your concern was that the article was too bloated, to the tune of removing 60k+ of material, I am surprised that you now want to increase the size even further with sentences like "Men's football was the only team event in which Egypt had its representation in these Olympic games", which is totally unnecessary and obvious from reading the rest of the article anyways. Having said that, I'll leave it in there for now and make a note with whoever decides to review this for GA status. If they think it should remain, then that's fine with me.
  2. Removing the redlinked athletes was inappropriate per WP:REDDEAL, which states that "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section". Since all of the redlinks you removed were for Olympic athletes, which are automatically notable per WP:ATHLETE, there is no reason to remove the links from the article, thus I will be restoring them. Also note, in terms of creating the articles, "A red link to an article that will plausibly be created in the future should be left alone rather than being created as a minimal stub article that has no useful information."
  3. The citation style used at Ahmed Habash for the Sports Reference website is insufficient. The website "Sports Reference" did not create the data or write the biographies, it was Bill Mallon et al., as can be demonstrated by the "Contributors and sources" page. Since these individuals work hard on providing the information that were are citing on Wikipedia, they should be credited for their work. As for there being a particular way to citing any source, please note per WP:CITEVAR, "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change."

Canadian Paul 21:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 10:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming to review this article TRM! I just wanted to note that, although the recent history may make it appear as if this article fails the stability criteria, per the section above we have come to an agreement that whatever the GA reviewer says about the issues in contention (specifically, the amount of detail in the article and the existence of the "Competitors" section), we will abide by. Canadian Paul 14:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Don't bold link Egypt, and trying to force a bold intro is pretty pointless if you ask me. No need for bold at all.
  • Regarding the lead, I know Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics has more to discuss, but it may be worth thinking about merging the background section into the lead, as right now it's a little weak and aesthetically discouraging, i.e. it doesn't make me want to continue reading...
  • Infobox, closing ceremony flag bearer is not referenced, while opening ceremony bearer is.
  • Per WP:ACCESS and MOS:DTT please put at least col scopes in the tables to help screen-reading software describe the tables more comprehensively.
  • Consider linking the opening and closing ceremony articles.
  • "20[note 2] different sports." I'd put the note after the full stop, it's not far away from the disputed issue and would look far better.
  • From section to section, no major need to relink and re-abbreviate things, such as EOC.
  • "selected a team of 115 athletes, 79 men and 36 women" vs "A total of 109 Egyptians, 75 men and 34 women", it's not immediately clear why these numbers are different.
  • "donating gear" doesn't sound encyclopaedic, perhaps "donating sports equipment" or similar?
  • "Notable athletes in the Egyptian team..." problem with this is that all athletes that compete in the Olympics are considered "notable" by Wikipedia. Perhaps you could rephrase this to discuss something like "Athletes representing Egypt included...." and discuss those you consider important enough for individual discussion.
  • "Note that reserves in fencing, field hockey, football, and handball are not counted as athletes." do you just mean "are not included"?
  • "Egypt qualified two archers..." this phrasing is used commonly, it seems a little odd to me, maybe its an ENGVAR issue. I'd have expected it to say "Two Egyptian archers qualified for..."
  • Avoid over-capitalisation in tables, etc. For instance, you have "Opposition Score" -> "Opposition score" is just fine.
  • Maybe a personal thing, but the widths of each of the qualifying rounds in the tables changes (I expect because the text is wider or narrower), but it looks messy and unclear.
  • Consistency: quarterfinal or quarter-final?
  • "He had won three medals" who had? The subject is ambiguous.
  • Suggest you consider linking technical terms like "recurve".
  • You have the width, because of the narrow table, you could add images of Egyptian athletes if available to brighten the article up a little.
  • "In London scored 644 points in " grammar issue.
  • "She was bested by.." odd phrasing. "defeated by" is more encyclopaedic.
  • "but failed to show up" that's true, but it's non encyclopaedic language, can we clarify this?
  • "he A qualifying standard" would that be "A-qualifying"?
  • "There he found himself in the same heat..." less tabloid please, perhaps, "He was placed in the same heat.."
  • Seems a little undue to mention this as well, since he wasn't just pipped at the post, he finished 8th, so the fact Rushida was in the heat was somewhat irrelevant.
  • "throw of 60.26" where are the units here et seq?
  • "Olympics, Hadia Hosny El Said. Hosny, a veteran of the " -> "Olympics, Hadia Hosny El Said. A veteran of the ... she..."
  • "Ranked No. 102" number. Or 102nd.
  • "pool" -> the linked article refers to it as a group.
  • Why is BYE in capitals?
  • "Qualification Legend" -> legend.
  • On that note, not all tables have such legends. I'd be consistent.
  • Karim El-Zoghby should have an article! At least a stub, Olympic appearance confers Wikipedia notability, no questions asked. Same applies to all Egyptian Olympians mentioned in this article.
  • "12 fencers, six men and six women" MOSNUM, so I'd say "twelve".
  • "by coming in third" it's not a boat, the team "came third".
  • "to the Knockout stage" no need for capital K.
  • "...Olympics.[55] view · talk" view talk? Something odd here.
  • Avoid the use of a hash to represent "number"
  • Not one single of the footballers had a cap? Or a goal? What's the context for these columns?
  • "Over-aged player." define that please."12 men and one woman"

Up to Gymnastics. Will save my "progress". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments II

  • Perhaps link "artistic" and "rhythmic" appropriately.
  • "He had been individual.." -> "He was"
  • "came in 12th." again, not a boat, he "came 12th" or "finished 12th".
  • Link things like "pommel horse" first time, not second time.
  • "the number two and three ranked" -> "second- and third-ranked..."
  • " El-Zeiny was 53rd on the balance beam, but finished last" seems harsh but was last 54th or 154th or what? No context.
  • No key for the Artistic tables, i.e. what's F, PH, etc.? I know there's "float over" text, but a key should be provided.
  • "only two of which advanced beyond " remove "only".
  • "as well as a the runner-up" grammar.
  • "but he lost in the opening" -> "but lost in the opening"
  • "a veteran of the,2004 and 2008 Games" grammar.
  • "on the international scene" -> "internationally"
  • What are "MP points"?
  • "N/A" and "BYE" (yuck) are missing from the "Qualification Legend" (sic).
  • What is a struck-through DNF?
  • " Ahmed Habash. Habash took up the sport as a t" -> don't repeat the surnames so quickly, you could just say "He took up..."
  • "The woman, American-born..." reads a little odd...
  • "came in second in the doubles" boat again. Just "came second".
  • "12 men and one woman" WP:MOSNUM twelve and one or 12 and 1.
  • "he bested Ecuador's" again, he defeated, or he beat or something less odd than "bested".
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the references. There's no need to CAPITALISE athletes' names, or article titles.

Plenty to look at, I'll put it on hold for a week. I have to say that these comments are from a quick run-through, there may be many more to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I believe that I have taken care of many of these, and I have the following comments:
  1. My only concern with merging the "background" section into the lead is that it would violate WP:LEAD's provision of not including information in the lead that is not present in the body of the article. If you are of the opinion, however, that the background section consists of only "trivial basic facts" that are exempted by the policy, then I have no other objection to the merge.
  2. Since this is finals week, I don't have time to tinker with any of the table fixes at the moment, but I will take care of those this weekend, when I can devote time to do them properly.
  3. Regarding the "Egypt qualified" language, I feel like that's accepted usage, but I could not find any easily accessible proof. When I have more time after this week, I'll look around and change the wording if it's improper usage.
  4. I removed signification portions of the "competitors" section; it was added by another user and I disagreed with much of it for more or less the same reasons that you did.
  5. The "qualifying standards" notation actually puts the letter in quotation marks per the IAAF. I've fixed that.
  6. I generally included the information about Rushida (and Bolt for that matter) just to vary up the sentence structure a bit, instead of having a stream of "he placed this, he placed that" etc. If it's really a problem, it can be removed.
  7. The "team roster" section is actually a template, hence the "view talk" issue. Since the roster is incorrect anyways (or, at least, requires qualification), I will try to see what I can do about this, as well as the "hash", "cap and goal columns", and "over age" issues (which are also part of the template).
  8. The second "pommel horse" links to the specific event, not a general description. I didn't link any of the gymnastic exercises to their general description; should I?
  9. The reference shouting was in the original source, but there's probably a policy somewhere that mentions converting those, so I'll take care of that this weekend as well.

As I mentioned above, I am in the midst of finals week right now, so I probably won't reply again here until the weekend (I had no way of knowing that this would be reviewed during winter finals week when I nominated it last November!), at which point I will take care of all of the concerns that I have not yet addressed, as well as any new ones that you provide. Canadian Paul 20:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, let me know how you get on. The week on hold isn't hard and fast as long as I get some feedback on how things are going so I know when to re-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be done now, except for the concerns that are related to the football template, my comments/questions above, and the following:
  1. "Opposition" and "Score" are purposely on two different lines for the data: they refer to the name of the opposition, and then the score, which are stacked on top of each other in the table. In other words, that cell is not for "opposition score" but "opposition" and "score". This is consistent with other Olympic GAs and articles, such as Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics.
  2. I need a little clarification on your comment about "the widths of each of the qualifying rounds in the tables". Do you mean the tables across all of the sports? Because each of the events has different metrics through which performance is judged, so I feel like it would be really awkward to try and get them all to look alike.

I'll take a look at the football templates shortly, but I need a break. In any case, I believe that I have addressed everything that's in the actual body of the article. Canadian Paul 19:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Paul and The Rambling Man, I think you should open a broad discussion on WikiProject Olympics because you're addressing countless problems and concerns on the table style, reference format, grammatical errors, description, redlinked athletes, consistency and conciseness issues, and vice versa regarding the articles on the country pages.

Raymarcbadz 09:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right but I'm reviewing this article in isolation, as a GAN, and yes, I think there are many issues. If you firmly believe that they should impact other such articles, that's probably outwith the remit of this particular review. And in all honesty, while there are so many issues, I have neither the time nor inclination to deal with the Olympics project people who, no doubt, will have their own "approach" to these issues. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright TRM, I believe that I have addressed every concern that is possible for me to address. I'm ready for what's next. Canadian Paul 01:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further

  • No need for the overcapitalisation throughout, e.g. "Opposition Score", should just be "Opposition score". "Opposition Result" should just be "Opposition result" etc.
  • What is the "v" in the football score template?
  • Why not crop the Islam El Shehaby image and put it at the top of the judo section to avoid all the white space I'm currently seeing?
  • Struck-through DNF not listed in the Sailing key.
  • What is M*? I know what M is...
  • Some key items have the underlining with the ? and appear in the key, others just have the underlining the the ? What's the strategy? Why not be consistent?

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Regarding the capitalisation issues, see my comment above: "Opposition" and "Score" are purposely on two different lines for the data: they refer to the name of the opposition, and then the score, which are stacked on top of each other in the table. In other words, that cell is not for "opposition score" but "opposition" and "score". This is consistent with other Olympic GAs and articles, such as Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics.
  1. Ok, but just because it's good in one place, it doesn't make it right...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree that there is any problem here and would consider this so far outside the purview of a GA review that it need not be debated in this context. If I bring it to FA and there's a consensus to change it there, I will. Canadian Paul 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The "v" is there because the results are listed in a template. I am not sure that that can be gotten rid of.
  1. The obvious answer is to avoid using the template if there are visual artefacts that are unnecessary or undesirable. Or to get the template changed so the mysterious "v" disappears when used in this context. The use of a template called Template:2012 Summer Olympics men's football game C2 seems particularly absurd since this isn't a template at all, it's a single use....! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one who originally created the template, so I'm not sure what to say, except that I think that the results template is intended for use in other articles as well. In any case, I would want extra opinions before I go copy and pasting templates into the body of the article. Canadian Paul 19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The struck-through DNF is listed as a struck-through X in the key, since this is a general key and X could be a point-value or a DNF (if the competitor had no DNF results, the lowest result would be struck)
  2. For consistency, all tool tips have been removed and migrated to the key.
Canadian Paul 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of responses added. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's been while, I'm still concerned over the length of the lead, for such an article it really needs to be longer, I understand your concerns over the inclusion of information that then isn't noted elsewhere, but WP:LEAD would imply we need a couple more paragraphs here. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've failed this for the moment. It's vastly improved since I first checked it out, so that's a huge positive. I'd like more work on the lead, I'd like to avoid blind usage of templates where they provide odd and unexplainable results, and I'd like some improvements to the appearances of the various tables throughout. It's a big project as has been noted above, all changes will affect hundreds of pages. But it's a good start, I certainly favour off-GAN discussions to improve these articles, and I'll happily provide consultation on that. In the meantime, sorry for the slow responses, but I hope the review has helped crystallise a few ideas for general improvements throughout all of these articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I feel that it is unacceptable to hold me to some standard that has nothing to do with the Good Article Criteria when dozens upon dozens of articles on US Street with barely any content pass on a routine basis. I'm going to ask for a community reassessment on this one. Canadian Paul 22:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm sure you'll find someone who will pass it without paying due consideration to the outstanding issues. Sure they may not be explicitly prescribed by the GA criteria, but they remain unaddressed. Sorry you found the conclusion so ridiculous, I won't take on your GANs in the future (and spend hours reviewing them) to avoid this unpleasant conclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

I see this is up at GAN again, and despite the overt & extreme unpleasantness and ingratitude I experienced at the hands of the nominator, it's important to consider that the current paltry lead is way off what is expected from a B-class article, let alone a GA, hence I've tagged it. Please see WP:LEAD to see what is expected. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rambling Man. I said earlier that the important thing about this article was improving the content, not getting a little green symbol but now, having been to Cairo and visited their Olympic Committee, and having spent two weeks really trying to understand the state of sports in their country, I now have a renewed sense of what an article like this can accomplish. There's so little information out there in English that an article like this can really make a difference in people's understanding, although I admit that there are probably far better articles that could be improved in order to accomplish that end. Thus I want to resume improving this and similar articles in the hopes of legitimately expanding the availability and quality of knowledge. Of course, I won't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming that I don't care at all about it being a Good or Feature Article, after all, a pat on the back or two goes a long way in making one feel appreciated for their hard work and encouraging them to move on, but it is not my primary focus
I made no attempt to hide or disguise the previous review or my reaction towards it and I highlighted the issues in the note that was attached to the nomination. You are correct in saying that I lacked gratitude for your review and for that I apologize and note that I did implement most of your well-thoughout and valuable comments. They went a long way in improving the article and for that I am very appreciative. Given the hard work and stressful nature that goes into working on Wikipedia, I hope that you can forgive me for my behavior. Any reviewer is welcome to look over your review and my reaction to it and decide that I am not worth working with. They can also, however, peruse my history at WP:GA and see that incidents such as this are the exception rather than the rule. As I also stated in that note, if another person agrees with your comments, then I will consider that consensus and respect it. We have a disagreement here: you think WP:LEAD should be followed in this case, whereas I think that WP:IAR should apply here because it doesn't make sense to follow WP:LEAD strictly given the nature of the article. One thing we both agree on, however, is that we want the article (or at least the project) to be improved (or else why would we spend our time here?). In that spirit, can I ask that either the tag be taken off or that we seek out a neutral third party opinion to resolve this matter right away (as opposed to waiting for the GA reviewer)? The tag benefits no one: a reviewer will come by, quick fail the article, and no one will get what they want. Most importantly, it will mean that the article will not be improved. Tags are often good and can indicate problems with the article, but in this case it would be a sign of good faith to get rid of the tag because it's in dispute (since I disagree with it) and said dispute could be solved in a way that benefits the project by involving neutral parties. Canadian Paul 09:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: NickGibson3900 (talk · contribs) 09:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this — NickGibson3900 Talk 09:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to previous review[edit]

Ok my summary is: The Rambling Man wants you to expand the lead but you don't want to put stuff in the lead that isn't in the article.

  1. TRM is right you need a lead of 3-4 paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH

How you can fix this[edit]

You can:

  1. Summarise the table in the Competitors section
  2. Summarise the more successful sports for Egypt
  3. Summarise the background section

Each of the these would be a paragraph. It shouldn't be to hard. You might ask where is point two in the article. Although it doesn't specifically talk about the more successful sports in does give the results and you can summarise those (you would mainly talk about the more successful sports for Egypt)

I'll do a full review once the lead has been expanded — NickGibson3900 Talk

@Canadian Paul: Sorry, forgot to ping. See above - NickGibson3900 Talk 06:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NickGibson3900: Actually, the jist was more that I felt that WP:IAR applied given the nature of the article, but your solution works for me nonetheless and improves the article, and your suggestions are quite helpful, so I'll accept the issue as having been decided by consensus and I have expanded the lead somewhat to three paragraphs. Canadian Paul 17:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Canadian Paul: Nice job!, I will do a full review in the next couple of days. - NickGibson3900 Talk 02:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full review[edit]

@Canadian Paul: Sorry about the with. I have been busy IRL. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 02:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Background[edit]

  • You over link here - Per WP:LINK, links should appear at their first appearance in the text
  • Link Chinese to China

Archery[edit]

  • Key: Say what "W" and "L" mean.
  • Key: Don't have "WR", "OR", "NR" of "DNS" as none of the Archers achieved any records and they all started

Athletics[edit]

  • ...a veteran of the 200 m event..." - m -> metre
  • change all other occurrences of "m" to metre/s
  • Key: "Q" and "DNS" are the only ones needed

Badminton[edit]

  • Unlink 2008 Summer Olympics. - It is linked further up in the text
  • Key: "DNS" not needed
  • Key: "L" need descriptions

Boxing[edit]

  • Unlink 2004 and 2008 Summer Olympics - Linked further up
  • Unlink 2007 Pan Arab - Linked further up
  • Key: "DNS" - Not needed
  • Key: "L" and "W" need descriptions

Canoeing[edit]

  • Unlink 2011 All-Africa Games - Linked further up
  • Key: Not needed at all

Equestrian[edit]

  • Unlink 2008 Games - Linked further up
  • Unlink 2011 Pan Arab Games - Linked further up
  • Key: "DNS" not needed

Fencing[edit]

  • Unlink 2011 Pan Arab Games
  • "Along the way he defeated American..." - To qualify for the final he beat American...
  • Unlink 2000, 2004, and 2008 editions
  • Key: Say what "L" and "W" means.
  • Key: Remove "DNS"

Football[edit]

  • "This was their fifth time in eleven tournaments surviving the group stage." This was their fifth time in eleven tournaments that Egypt progressed out of the group stage.

Gymnastics[edit]

  • Links need to be on the first occurrence. - Most of the links in the last sentence in paragraph one are mentioned in the second-last sentence in paragraph 1
  • "...as the second- and third-placed..." - Remove the - after second
  • Key: "DNS" not needed

Judo[edit]

  • Unlink 2008 Summer Olympics
  • "...had participated in the 2004 and 2008 Summer Olympics..." - Unlink 2004 and 2008 Summer Olympics
  • Key: "W" and "L" descriptions needed
  • Key: "DNS" not needed
  • Ok that is about half. Once the above have been fixed I'll do the rest

@NG39:: I have now taken care of most of these; the only exceptions are that I left out a few of the links since I felt they were overlinking and did not remove links to most of the things you suggested in the individual sections because the majority lead to specific events, and are thus only appearing once, rather than the tournament at large. Oh, and I also didn't understand your first comment under "Gymnastics". Canadian Paul 17:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The DNS note can actually be removed for all but the one instance it's used. FWIW, since the user vanished I'll do a skim of the remaining sections and conclude the review myself. Wizardman 01:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and took a look through what remained of the article and didn't really see any issues, though I did clean what was remaining on the DNS notes. As a result I'll pass this. Wizardman 22:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for picking up the rest of this review @Wizardman:! Canadian Paul 17:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 08:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 18:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Egypt at the 2012 Summer Olympics. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 09:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Egypt_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1196551932"