Talk:John Pulman/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: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 12:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

  • Thanks for a comprehensive and constructive review, Lee Vilenski. I've responded below, please let me know anything remaining to address. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures[edit]

  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links[edit]

Prose[edit]

Lede[edit]

  • Herbert John Pulman[1] (12 December 1923 – 25 December 1998)[1] - this could be easily sourced in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the tournament reverted to a knockout event in 1969 he lost in the first round. He was runner-up to Ray Reardon in 1970. - combine this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

  • I've reorganised the article a bit, hopefully it works better now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In early life - .[1][2][3][4] - Probably best to inline cite this section, rather than chuck them all at the end, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next season, he won the qualifying section of the World Snooker Championship by defeating Willie Leigh on the black in the deciding frame. - definately worth mentioning it was 18-17! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I've omitted the Pulman-Brown semi-final score as Hayton has 31-16, Kobylecky has 36-25, and 1955 World Professional Match-play Championship has 37-24. Everton (1985) says no result available. There's also some discrepancy between sources about the score in the final before dead frames, so I've removed that too. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulman extended his lead to 31–17 after four days[15] and won the match on the fifth day, taking a 37–23 winning lead. Pulman made a break of 109 in frame 57.[16] The remaining 13 "dead" frames were played on the final day with Pulman finishing 40–33 ahead.[17] - can we reword for flow - the century break bit feels out of place, place at end. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the reference to the century break. They were less common in those days but still not particularly notable. Is it OK now? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At one venue where no spectators were present, they reputedly spun a coin to determine the winner instead of playing the match.[19][9]{rp|41}} - needs fixing Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded, let me know what you think. In Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards, Everton states it as a fact, but without any further detail. I though it best to add "reputedly". Kobylecky says that the matches were as much as 500 miles apart, doesn't mention anything about coin spinning. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^^ Also, any more content on this, seems super notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulman won the series at five matches to Davis' two and took the final match as well to win by five matches to two - wut? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. Corrected the number, let me know if anything else is needed here. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Pulman then winning five of the nest six frames, three of them on the black, to leave Charlton 17–19 behind. - cleanup needed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulman failed to successfully defend his title, - successfully is a word too many. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some work on this. There are still a few pairs of references that I could work on if required. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's sad. Apparently he fell downstairs whilst his girlfriend was away, and was unable to move for almost 24 hours. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we add anything on this? It seems a little dry without any more info. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments[edit]

  • I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA and FA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definitely not mandatory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Pulman/GA1&oldid=965867918"