Talk:2012 World Snooker Championship/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 03:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to take a look. The article seems to be in pretty good shape, which means my comments will probably consist mainly of nitpicks or suggestions that you can feel free to disregard. For the record, I don't know the first thing about snooker, so bear with me. (Hopefully I'll learn something!) Comments are below, in no particular order. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Could you try to fix the dead link (currently ref. 51)?
  • Usually the explanatory notes would be under their own heading, since they aren't references.
  • hadqualified and sessionby need spaces
  • enlikened – not a word, as far as I can tell
  • sabatical – typo
  • Crucible Almanac – is this reliable? It seems to be self-published: is the author "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"?
    • Certainly is! Chris Downer writes it, snooker historian who's done statistical pieces for the BBC, Eurosport, Sporting Life etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a lot of duplinks, including some that are fairly close to one another.
  • Capitalize BBC sport
  • Founded in the late 19th century – "founded" is an unusual word to describe a sport: perhaps "developed" or even "invented" would be better.
  • The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred – this would seem to fit better in the next paragraph, since at this point the 2012 championship hasn't even been mentioned yet.
  • the previous years final – apostrophe in "year's"
  • before the championship, that he hated the Crucible – no need for a comma
  • six months sabatical from the sport, – make the comma a semicolon

As expected, no serious problems. More comments to come, hopefully later today. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • as well as a qualifying draw that was played at the Pontin's, Prestatyn Sands, from 6 to 11 January. – not seeing this in the cited source. Also, might be worth linking Pontins.
    • That's cause it didn't take place there. I have replaced with the correct info (and cited). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jones was also the lowest ranked player to win a second round match; ranked world number 36 – the source says he was #36, but I don't see where it says that he was the lowest ranked. Perhaps I'm missing something?
  • broadcast by the BBC in the United Kingdom, and Eurosport in Europe – not seeing any reference to Eurosport in the source.
  • just 55 days older than Dennis Taylor and since 45-year-old Ray Reardon in 1978 – the 55-day figure doesn't seem to be in the body of the article, nor does the reference to Reardon. I also noticed that this source says that Taylor was only 40 days younger. (You could also consider removing the Taylor mention altogether: I'm not sure it's quite lead-worthy.)
  • Hendry, seven-time winner of the event – I'd make this "Hendry, a seven-time winner of the event," with a comma after "event".

Feel free to start working on these, Lee: you won't step on my toes. More comments forthcoming. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • played over several frames – the link on "frames" (to Glossary of cue sports terms#frames) doesn't seem to get me to the correct section.
  • Changed link Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • before Higginson won the four – confusingly structured with two "before" clauses in one sentence
  • announced he would take a six months sabatical – might be worth saying why, if the sources permit it.
    • so there is a few different reasons, O'Sullivan has commented a few reasons, the main one being burnout, but sources are pretty contradictory on the deal, and contemporary sources don't have much info on it, so I left blank. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running out of things to nitpick, so I'll put this on hold. Again, most of these points aren't critical for purposes of GA promotion, so feel free to ignore them if you like. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    All my prose quibbles have been resolved; the article is comprehensible for non-experts.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Sources are reliable.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Lots of primary source usage, but that's to some extent unavoidable given the topic, and in any event there are no overt OR issues.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig finds only common phrases and reverse copyvio.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Strikes a good balance between detail and brevity.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    The fair-use rationale strikes me as reasonable, and the remaining images are freely licensed.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    No issues, although you might add alt-text
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Good work, as always. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_World_Snooker_Championship/GA1&oldid=1051387445"