Talk:Marco Fu/GA1

GA Review

Lead

• Needs to be substantially longer per WP:LEAD. The lead needs to summarise the entire article.

Early career

• This section flits around a little chronologically. For example, I think his birth should be mentioned first.

First year

• Flits around again. His ranking in 2001 is given before his ranking in 1998.
• "Fu's subsequent performance was disappointing, and he slid back down the rankings." POV and needs referencing.

Rise

• "Fu is a prolific break-builder.[7] He achieved his highest break of 147 in 2000 at the Regal Scottish Masters[4] and has compiled 147 competitive century breaks during his career." Short paragraph. I would move this to another paragraph.
• "terrible season" POV and needs a reference.
• "suggested he would not go far in the tournament." POV and needs a reference. Surely this is what snooker, like any sport is about anyway? Form goes up and down.
• "In what Snooker Scene magazine described as "one of the greatest upsets in the history of the game"," Needs a reference.

First title

• "Marco had used Griffiths for a short while some years ago" Do you know when and for how long?
• "and it was an emphatic fight," POV and needs a reference

Recent times

• Very short and stubby. Is there reason for a new section at this stage?
• "Following a disappointing loss in the previous tournament," POV and needs a reference. Why was it disappointing?

Style points

• Scores should use endashes, e.g. 5–4, per WP:DASH
• Seasons should also use endashes (not slashes), e.g. 2000–01 season, per WP:DASH.
• Emdashes should be unspaced per WP:DASH. A number of other hyphens within text need to be consistently emdashes.
• References should be placed immediately after punctuation where appropriate, and there should be no space between the punctuation or word and the ref tag. See WP:CITE.
• Numbers and their units need to be broken by non-breaking spaces, e.g. 147 competitive centuries.
• Numerals less than ten should be spelt out in full per WP:MOSNUM, except for scores.

Quite a bit to do, but I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Peanut4, I'll try and improve the article using your points above when I have the time. - Nick C (t·c) 14:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'll try keep it on hold for an extended time if you want. It may also be worth trying to get a third party copy edit. Peanut4 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you put it on hold for an extended time please, I'm going to be busy in the next few weeks (maybe months), so I might not always have time to check Wikipedia. Thanks. - Nick C (t·c) 16:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The normal timeframe to put an article on hold is seven days. I will extend that a little bit. It might be best to update any progress on my talk page at regular intervals. Peanut4 (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"He is best known for" is going to be hard to verify and comes across as POV. Stick to listing his greatest successes in terms of ranking points? --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I probably won't be able to improve this article in time. I hope someone else can. - Nick C (t·c) 17:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Peanut4 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)