Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2021 World Figure Skating Championships/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 7 July 2025 .

2021 World Figure Skating Championships


Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2021 World Figure Skating Championships were held during the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, this article has a lot more background material than a typical skating competition. While I have never submitted an article to FA, I have shepherded several through the Featured List process. The competition results are all sourced and documented, the tables are properly formatted, the background and history have been extensively re-written, the sources are properly formatted and archived (where possible), and relevant photographs are used. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or comments, and I look forward to any constructive input. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

  • "were held from March 22–28, 2021". Replace the dash with the word 'to' per MOS:RANGE.
  • "hosted this year by Skate Sweden". "this year" is ambiguous. Suggest deleting.
  • "throughout the duration of the event." A touch of redundancy there. Maybe 'for the duration of the event' or 'throughout the event'.
  • "and any potential changes determined based on ..." I hiccupped reading this. Maybe 'and any potential changes needed would be determined based on' or similar?
  • "due to insufficient COVID-19 protocols." I struggle to work out what this means. Did they want more protocols? Better protocols? Something else? Come to that, what was a COVID-19 protocol? You have not mentioned them before.
  • "with all athletes testing negative". As this is the first mention of this, could you tell readers what it means.

More to follow. A nice, tightly written article so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thank you for the feedback. I have made the recommended changes, including a rewrite of the bit about Canada. It turns out Skate Canada's complaint wasn't with Sweden, but with Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, at the start of "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic" you could do with saying what there was a pandemic of, what effect it had generally and why, and what effect it had on organised sport and why. What the tests were, how often one needed to test, transmission mechanism, vaccinations (maybe), what is meant by "protocols". Social distancing and masks and their rationale, Contact tracing procedures. Lots of things lower down which don't get proper explanations. You get the idea. At the moment the article just assumes that a reader more or less knows more or less all of that.
  • I can see why we just expect everyone to know everything about COVID at this point. I have imported some text from COVID-19 pandemic and will continue to work on that section with what you've suggested above.
  • "Some skaters, however, felt that proper precautions were being taken". Suggest "proper" → 'adequate'. Fixed.
  • "The ISU did not address the campaign's concerns". Does this mean that the ISU did not make any changes in response? If so, I suggest saying that.
  • "in violation of the ISU's COVID-19 safety guidelines." I don't think this quite works grammatically. Can one be in violation of guidelines?
  • Fixed. I changed "guidelines" to "protocols", which is more enforceable.
  • "were documented not wearing masks". Does that work in USEng? Fixed. Yes.
  • "had been found, with this case being discovered". Is it possible to rephrase to avoid the found/discovered repetition? Fixed.
  • "for virtual judging." Is there a link for "virtual".
  • Fixed. I don't know if it's exactly accurate, but it's the closest link Wikipedia has.
  • "Normally, the number of entries for the 2021 World Championships would have been ..." Should/could there be a 'from each country' in there? Fixed.
  • "Under the Court of Arbitration for Sport ban, Russian athletes could not ..." Could we have a brief explanation as to why?
  • Like with COVID, we can't assume everyone knows about the Russian doping scandal, so I've expanded that section.
  • "present themselves as "Neutral Athletes" or a "Neutral Team" ". Why the upper-case initial letters?
  • That's how they're identified in the source.
  • "Athletes from Russia, who were not allowed to compete using the Russian name or flag at the World Championships due to doping sanctions against the country, would compete under the Russian Olympic Committee (ROC) flag at the 2022 Winter Olympics for the same reason." The doping thing should be mentioned earlier and at greater length. You don't need to repeat "who were not allowed to compete using the Russian name or flag at the World Championships". Fixed.

Gog the Mild, thank you for the additional feedback. While I am still working on the article, I did want you to take a look at these two sections, when you have a chance, which I heavily edited per your comments to see if you have anything further.

I will address the item below tomorrow, so I don't want you to think I'm ignoring it. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What there is is pretty good, but there seems to be nothing on what the article should be about: the actual competition. There is a table where I would expect the meat of the article to be. To get an idea of what is expected regarding prose descriptions of the actual sporting performance at FAC reading 1883 FA Cup final, which is currently at FAC, or 2023 World Snooker Championship, which was promoted a little while ago, may help. Or Australia women's national wheelchair basketball team at the 2012 Summer Paralympics, which is an article as close to yours as I could as I could find among recent promotions. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, those competitions are really not comparable because those sports are all interactive, but figure skating is not. Someone performs, leaves the ice, receives their score; and then repeat that thirty times, and that's a figure skating competition. The play-by-play format that works for team sports or even one-on-one sports just wouldn't work here. Now, that being said, I did add a section prior to the results that outlines what elements the skaters performed, and the format of the competition. I also added some details prior to each of the four events with media citations. I believe I have also addressed the other issues you mentioned. Please take a look at the article now and let me know what you think. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten that. (I don't often think about figure skating.) Ok, in which case that needs explaining to a reader. A little more formally that you have above, and at a little greater length, and cited, should get somewhere near what is needed. This - Compulsory figures - a successful FAC from a few years ago may be more relevant as some sort of guide than my previous suggestions. It may even have a cite or two in worth stealing. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Figureskatingfan, I was wondering if there was any chance of a review, or at least some pointers as a subject expert? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I'm trying to meet a deadline in another project, so give me a few days to get more ahead. It looks like this FAC is going well for you, so you may not even need my input. I promise to keep a eye on it and once I get caught up and if I'm needed, I'll return and give some feedback. Thanks for asking! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take 2

This seems to have made splendid progress since I last looked at it. I'll run through it completely and see where I think it is at.

  • "the most prestigious event in figure skating, second only to the Olympics." How can they be both "the most prestigious event in figure skating" and "second only to the Olympics".
  • The World Championships are annual, while the Olympics are quadrennial. Also, the Olympics are not exclusively a figure skating event.
I understand this, but it is nevertheless a contradiction. Only one event can be "the most prestigious event in figure skating".
Also, the lead is meant to summarise the main article. Could you help me out and quote the part of the main article which this sentence is a summary of. Thanks.
  • Okay, the source explicitly describes the World Championships as the most prestigious event and makes no mention of the Olympics, so I have edited the text accordingly.
  • If the "Russian name" was "prohibited", how could Russian skaters competed as representatives of the Figure Skating Federation of Russia?
  • As I understand it, they couldn't use the country's name. I have edited the prose.
The main article looks good, but the lead still says "that prohibited the use of the Russian name or flag during the competition, all Russian skaters competed as representatives of the Figure Skating Federation of Russia"
  • Fixed.
  • "and travel over longer distances". "longer" than what?
  • Fixed.
  • "Several COVID-19 vaccines have been approved and distributed". Do you mean 'had been'?
  • No, "have been" is appropriate.
Why? "Several COVID-19 vaccines have been approved and distributed" is open ended, time wise. It includes vaccines approved and distributed last week. Which is not an inaccurate statement, but is not relevant to the background for this article.
  • Okay, changed.
  • "One testing method for COVID-19". I think this needs unpacking a little. Maybe to something like 'One method of testing to see if a person was infected with COVID-19 was ...'
  • I disagree, but it's not big to deal to me, so I added it.
Thank you for humouring me.
  • "had already been lifted on November 20, 2020." Why "had already been" rather than 'was'?
  • That one should be "was". Fixed.
  • What is the difference between "As early as November 2020" and 'In November 2020'?
  • Fixed.
  • "One testing method for COVID-19 included real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR)". You say "included"; what else - as well as PCR - did this testing method involve?
  • "was" is better than "included".
  • "Attendees were not eligible for accreditation until passing a second PCR test." The grammar of this doesn't quite work.
  • I think it was fine, but I did rephrase it slightly.
  • "Bubble" is defined at length and in identical words in both "Criticism and concerns" and the immediately following sub-section.
  • I didn't want it in the second section; that was added per another reviewer's comments. I moved the source up to Criticism and concerns and removed the second definition.
Good. Better IMO.
  • "technical elements scores". What constitutes an element?
  • The "Minimum technical scores" table. If you are going to include it you need to give a reader some idea of what a competitor needs to do to achieve this minimum. Actually, you need to define "technical" - as a non-afficionado, I realise that I have no idea.
  • I have actually deleted this table and the paragraph above it because it really is unimportant in the long run. An explanation about technical elements and so on has been added to a new section entitled Judging which you can examine here.
That looks great. A tour de force.
  • Nobody wants to see how their sausage is made. That's like trying to explain how a figure skating competition is judged.
A fan of Bismarck, I am impressed.
  • I suggest that "Required performance elements" - ie the description of the performances - go before "Medalists" - the results of the performances.
  • That's a good idea. Moved.
  • "and had to include the following elements: a maximum of seven jump elements ... a maximum of three spins". Were there minimums for jumps or spins?
  • "and had to include the following elements" three times on the bounce. Maybe a little rewording for one or two of them?
  • "a maximum of three pair lifts". Any minimum?
  • "the rhythm dance included the following elements". This seems very vague. Did every dance include all of those? Or were all of them included in at least one dance? Or were they the elements from which contestants could chose? Or what?
  • Yes, every dance included those elements. Those elements are deliberately vague to allow teams to tailor their performances.
That's fine. Just tweak the wording to make clear that "every dance included [all] those elements".
  • I have reworked all of those sections to clarify that skaters had to do 7 jumps, 3 spins, etc., as well as a more detailed listing of the ice dance elements.
  • "Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the rhythm dance requirements from the 2020–21 figure skating season continued for the 2021–22 season." What? Why? Were the requirements for 2020-21 different from any previous season?
  • The pattern and music requirements change each season.
Say so.
  • I don't think that's necessary; all that matters is what requirements were in place for this specific competition. I removed the sentence which stated that the requirement carried over from the previous season.
  • "The pattern dance was the Finnstep". I think this one really does call for an in line explanation of Finnstep, per MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."
  • I have added a brief explanation with source.

Looking very good so far. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a "fun, fast" ballroom-style dance". Suggest removing the quote marks. Otherwise the MoS requires that "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
  • Quotations removed.
  • The only over-arching thing that jumps out at me is - how are points earned/awarded? I am guessing that it involves a panel of judges assessing against some criteria, but it would be nice if the article told me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was afraid this was going to come up, but I'm not entirely surprised. It's a giant clusterfuck. I'll see if I can come up with a (sourced) explanation that won't make the reader go Huh?
You've done a good job. You may be aware of the phrase "as plain as a pikestaff"? Meaning 'utterly obvious'. In one article I had to describe a pike in some detail. followed by how it was used. The opposite perhaps of your "Huh!".

User:Gog the Mild: I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Please let me know if you have any other feedback or suggestions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that it must seem that I am giving you a hard time, but I am much impressed by your work, think that we are nearly there - see the handful of minorish comebacks above - and believe that you will have a very solid and worthy article once we are finished. (Re "hard time", my recent nomination of Punic Wars generated discussion more than three times the length of the 7,000 word article! *rolly eyes* ) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Figureskatingfan, check out the new section I have entered regarding judging here, and let me know what you think. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The prose looks good; it effectively explains the complex scoring system that's the IJS. Refs 68-88, however, all have harv errors. For multiple refs from the same source but different page numbers, I suggest using the rfn template. I can do those fixes for you, if you like. Also, it's unclear if the scoring system you describe are the rules that were in effect in 2021 or if they're the current ones, since the rules tend to change. I think you need to state that you're talking about the rules as of 2021, since, I think, that would be simplest solution. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Figureskatingfan: They should be the 2021 rules. Feel free to modify any of the sources as you see fit.

Support from Hawkeye7

Looks good. Some comments to prove I read it:

  • A lot of footnotes in the lead always raises concerns that what it says is not in the body.
  • I have removed the footnotes for items which are discussed later on, and also moved one sentence entirely down to later in the article as it's really not significant enough to warrant being mentioned in the lead.
  • Infobox: I know this may sound odd, but the date without the year had me pause to think. I realise that you could infer the date from the season, but for several sports I could name (starting with the Tokyo 2020 Olympics) in the COVID era the season doesn't match the date. In other words: would it be possible to add the year to the date?
  • A reasonable suggestion.
  • "The COVID-19 pandemic began with an outbreak of COVID-19 in China in December 2019."~> WP:ASTONISHME @EEng: If it had begun with an outbreak of Portnoy's Complaint, now that would have been worth noting.
  • Do we need the second paragraph of "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic"? The only relevant sentence is the last. Consider removing the rest.
  • It was User:Gog the Mild who suggested adding all of that information about the pandemic in his comments above.
  • "One testing methods for COVID-19 to detect the virus's nucleic acid included real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which was used at the 2021 World Championships." ~> "One testing methods" Is there one or many here? And were we trying to detect the virus of its RNA?
  • Fixed.
  • Move fn 23 to the end of the sentence ending with "further limiting their preparedness"
  • Done.
  • "they planned to focus instead on the 2022 Winter Olympics" How were they planning to qualify?
  • It would ultimately be up to the French Federation to decide whom to send to the Olympics. This event just netted berths for the respective nations, not guaranteed spots for any skaters.
  • "they, too, had concerns about COVID-19 safety" Nobody else has been mentioned in this context
  • Fixed.
  • "PCR test" only needs to be linked once
  • Fixed.
  • Age and minimum TES requirements: Source for this table?
  • Fixed.
  • Why is the table heading available on screen readers only? Show it!
  • Same story on the second table
  • I had been advised at FL reviews that if the table's caption is the same as the section header right above it, to go ahead and hide it, but I have no objection to showing it.
  • "If a nation is not listed on this table, it could field only one entry per discipline." Source?
  • Ice dance: "continue dfor"
  • Fixed.
  • "Olympic qualification event" ~> This isn't actually an event on the program
  • Are you referring to the header? I've changed it.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC) User:Hawkeye7: Thank you so much for your feedback! I believe I have implemented or addressed everything you suggested. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions or concerns. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Figureskatingfan source review - pass

A fine article, well-written and interesting. I commend you for expanding it; this and other pandemic-era figure skating competitions are important in the sport's history and should have an account of their unusual nature on WP. Additionally, this could be a model for articles about other competitions; I've always thought that the tradition of these articles being basically lists and tables of scores misses the opportunity of having accounts of them, especially if they occurred during important historical periods. Of course, a lot of that is impossible, since unfortunately, there may not be sources out there about them.

But I digress. For this review, I'm doing a source review, plus a few general comments. Take what you like and leave the rest, as the saying goes.

Source review:

Ref1b: The source states that the bubble was in existence for the competition, but it does not define a pandemic bubble. You need to find a source that does that. Done.

Ref6: The source does not state that the PCR test was used at Worlds. Done. A subsequent source did, so I copied it up.

Ref10: I think you should include that the World Jr. Synchronized Skating Championships was also cancelled; synchronized skating is figure skating, you know. Done.

Ref16: Please include page numbers; in this case, pgs. 1 and 3. Done, by FSF. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 21 and 43: Twitter and Instagram are not considered reliable sources; either remove the content they support or find other sources that do. Per WP:TWITTER, social media posts can be used as sources under certain circumstances, which I believe apply here, as it is the Japan Skating Federation's official account. As for the two Armenian skaters, I did replace that one.

That's fine; I'm usually strict about not using social media as sources, but I can accept your interpretation of the policy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skaters' responses section, 1st paragraph: “Multiple skaters had been unable to train..." is supported by ref24 and ref25, but ref24 only talks about Hanyu and ref25 only talks about Galyavieva and Thoron. Neither source, unless I missed it, generalizes their experience with training and their coaches to other skaters. If you’re going to make that statement, that multiple skaters had that experience, your sources need to support that assertion, but neither source you cite does. You either need to find a source that states that, or you need to change the wording; i.e., “For example, Japanese single skater Yuzuru Hanyu and French ice dancers Adelina Galyavieva and Louis Thoreau were unable to train with their primary coaches...” This is the third time so far that I’ve found similar errors, and it appears a few more times; to be honest, Bgsu98, I’ve seen you do this in other figure skating articles. See WP:BURDEN. Yuzuru+Galyavieva+Thorn = multiple. If I had linked only the Yuzuru article, for example, while saying "multiple", then you would be correct.

Okay, we're getting really picky here. As a reader, when I see the words "multiple" or "some" (as below), I think of more than two, but you're right, the dictionary definition of both words mean "more than one." I still think you could improve the wording as per my suggestion, but I'll let this slide this time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Figureskatingfan, okay, I was counting them as three. I don't think of two as "multiple", but three or more. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref27: This is an excellent source about the accommodations made at Worlds. You include some of them, but you could add more of them described in the source. In other words, you could have mined the source for more information. See WP:MINE. I assume this is now Ref28. I'm not sure what accommodations are not mentioned in the article.

Yes, after all the changes, the ref numbering changed, which happens. Here are three additional things you could've added from ref28, which is , which is about Moore-Towers and Marinaro, and full of content about their responses: (1) They did not expect that Worlds would happen in 2021; (2) Marinaro's grandmother died of COVID; (3) they had a lot of downtime caused by the COVID shutdowns, which rejuvenated them and provided them with much needed rest and respite. These are just suggestions, so it's up to you if you want to follow them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 29 and 30: More over-generalization, same problems as above. Two skaters = "some"

Ref45: The source does not support your assertion regarding the minimum age of eligibility. I went ahead and added the page number. I looked and looked, and couldn't find any actual documentation about age requirements at that point, so I just deleted the statement. I seems unimportant anyway.

Sorry about that, but thanks for the removal. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref46: "If a nation is not listed on this table, it could field only one entry per discipline." This is about the table below, so the source doesn’t technically support it directly. You could either state that the ISU did not name nations that could only send one entry, or you could put this in a note. Done, but I'm not trilled with the wording. Please let me know if you can think of a better alternative.

I think that's fine. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref50: Again, the source doesn’t support all the assertions you make. This is how I would handle this: "Thus, Russian skaters, like all Russian athletes, had to compete under the shorter name of the Figure Skating Federation of Russia, or “FSR,” and without their country’s flag or anthem." You can also remove the first time ref50 is used, since it supports both sentences. What is now Ref51 does support all of this information.

Okay, this is now fine, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref70: The link takes you to the 2024 Regulations, not to the regulations in effect in 2021. As you know, regulations in figure skating change often, so the regulations listed in the source might not have been in effect in 2021. Unfortunately, the ISU uses the same URL address whenever it publishes a new version of its regs, so it’s impossible to locate the regs in effect back in 2021, unless it was archived. I looked and couldn’t find the archived version. What this means is that you’ll have to either find another source that lists the required elements or, unfortunately, remove the content. Done. I found the 2021 document and switched it in.

Wow, how impressive! I love it that even after all these years of editing, I still learn stuff. I didn't know about Scribd as a source for lost websites, so thank you for that. Excellent. The ads are a bit annoying, though.
This brings up something else, though. Your content supported by what is now ref71, the 2021 regs, has multiple page numbers. For example, men's and women's required elements for the SP are are on p. 103, and the pairs' required elements are on p. 112. You need, therefore, to put the source in a Works cited section and include the page numbers as inline citations. Currently, you're forcing the reader to hunt for the information. I know that this is a big ask, but I'm willing to do that for you, if you like. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just did something similar for the Canadian National Skating Championships, which is up for FL review, so I will be happy to do that here. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's correct. It can be a pain, but while you use the harvp template, I use the sfn one. They both do the same things and they're both as easy to use. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skaters' responses section, 2nd paragraph: "Other skaters scheduled to compete at the World Championships, including Nathan Chen of the United States, the defending world champion in the men's event, stated that while they were grateful for the opportunity to compete, they had concerns about COVID-19 safety protocols." The first source talks about Chen. Expansion opportunity: What were his concerns? The second source talks about Moore-Towers and Marinaro, as part of your generalization about “other skaters." You could cite their concerns, too. I've expanded that whole paragraph.

Nice, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you only focus on the top three winners in the Results section? I have no problem with you doing it; I’d just like to hear your reasons for it. Suggestion: You could include information that’s interesting or noteworthy about other competitors, but I’m requiring it from you. I also recommend that you see if you can better mine the news articles for more content. Again, that’s not a requirement, since you’ve made the editorial choice to only include information about the top three winners. I did not focus only on the medalists, although I did make sure to include them, as they typically receive the lion's share of the media attention. I did include details about Yuzuru Hanyu, Karen Chen, and Vincent Zhou – Zhou had a disastrous short program and did not advance to the free skate.

I'm fine with this explanation, appreciate that you answered me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's my source review. Take care of these points and I will happily pass this to FA. Keep up the great work and thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The only thing that's unresolved are the page numbers in the regs suggestion above. Once we've taken care of that, I will support. Again, nice job. I think that using this article as a model for other similar articles is an excellent idea, something that once this passes, we should add to the Figure Skating WikiProject page. Thanks for all you hard work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Figureskatingfan, the citations for the competition elements should be fixed now. Please let me know, and thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:27, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. Move to SUPPORT. Congratulations and best to you going forward. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho

  • I'd suggest adding the year to the short description since this covers a particular year of the championship rather than the championship overall
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed. I did not know this.
  • "while the European Championships, Four Continents Championships, and World Junior Championships were all cancelled." – if known, was this also because of COVID? If so, I'd reword that and the following sentence somehow to make clear that it applies to both statements.
  • Fixed.
  • "grateful for the opportunity to compete, had had concerns about COVID-19" – I'm not sure if the double "had" is grammatically correct here, but might just be misreading it, if it is intentional?
  • Fixed. It should have been "he had".
  • "Pairs skater Kirsten Moore-Towers of Canada described "anxiousness over the unknown."[28]" – the period should be outside of the quotation marks since this is only a sentence fragment (MOS:LQ).
  • Fixed.
  • "tighter bubble – a cluster made up exclusively of individuals who have been thoroughly tested and therefore unlikely to spread infection – garnered thousands" – this needs nonbreaking spaces added(MOS:DASH).
  • Fixed. I'd never heard of these before.
  • "Attendees at the competition remained in a bubble, a cluster made up exclusively of individuals who have been thoroughly tested and unlikely to spread infection," – I do think the definition of this is useful, but after doing so in the lead and the section immediately preceding, I don't know that a third time is necessary?
  • I can't say I disagree, but that was added per the review immediately above yours.
  • "SP/RD FS/FD" – I don't know what these abbreviations mean without clicking the link. This table isn't exactly hurting for space, can you either use the full term on first mention (or use {{abbr}} as an alternative?
  • I've altered this table, although I don't like it now. Granted, I didn't really care about it to begin with, as most people aren't going to know or care what those numbers mean. I could actually see ditching the table altogether.
  • "The ISU published a complete list of entrants on March 2, 2021." – this seems slightly out of place since the section is discussing changes to those entries. Reading that line of prose at first, I expected the following table to have the full list. I'd either relocate that, add a second sentence introducing the table, and/or unhide the table caption to avoid confusion.
  • These World Championship articles originally have full tables with all of the entrants listed by country. You can see how it originally appeared here. The suggestion had been made at the FS WikiProject that this table becomes redundant once the results tables are added, and I agree.
  • "Small medals were awarded to the skaters" – what's a small medal?
  • Literally a gold, silver, or bronze medal that is smaller than the ones given at the end of the competition.
  • "Medals by country" – this table needs a caption.
  • Fixed.
  • "Lasting no more than 2:40 minutes" --> "Lasting no more than 2 minutes 40 seconds (MOS:TIME/MOS:NUMNOTES).
    • Ditto above on the second usage of 2:40
  • "no more than four minutes" --> "no more than 4 minutes" (per the same).
    • Same on second usage
  • Ditto once more for the next section
  • Fixed (all of the above).
  • "WD" in the table could probably also benefit from {{abbr}}
  • That's in a template.
  • "which was later revealed to be a false positive COVID-19 test" – I think a link to false positive would be more beneficial here than another link to COVID-19
  • References 1 and 70 in this version appear to point to the same place, can they be merged?
  • Fixed.

I know I noted several things here, but most of them are minute MOS fixes, so I hope this review is useful. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

Any objection to me submitting another article while this one is still pending? I don’t necessarily have one ready to go right now, but I do have several that I can work on based on the improvements we’ve made to this article. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. I think you have done much of the hard work for a series of similar articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2021_World_Figure_Skating_Championships/archive1&oldid=1299363961"