Talk:William A. Spinks/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 21:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Citations are discouraged from the lead per WP:LEADCITE, but this won't effect the GAN

"While Spinks was a world-class player, his lasting contributions to cue sports were the innovations he brought to the game and the industry resulting from his fascination with the abrasives used by players on the leather tips of their cue sticks." - needs a citation

"Spinks made a "fortune"[2][3][17] from his co-invention and the company that sold it to the world." - the end of the sentence needs a citation

"(arguably the most difficult of all cue sports aside from artistic billiards)" - sounds like an opinion
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A done a bit of cleaning up, but I don't see why this should be delayed. Looks comprehensive and well written enough. JAGUAR 16:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. I removed the comparison-between-disciplines clause. While it is true and not opinion-based, it would need a source, and it's easy to see why it might look like opinion. (It's actually just a factor of shot complexity, which is essentially physics + geometry; the more variables are introduced, the more complex and thus more difficult it is.) "One of the most difficult cue sports disciplines" is a sufficient statement, without any one-to-one comparison, and the article on balkline billiards, not individual player bios, is the place for WP to source the difficulty of the game, and this seems to be handled already (the entire story of the sport is making it progressively more and more difficult, an "arms race" against the techniques of the world champions). The "his lasting contributions" statement doesn't need a citation, but is the thesis statement summary sentence of that whole section, which is well-sourced in demonstrating the claim. He is remembered for and got rich by his cue chalk innovations, but never won a major title and was always somewhere around 3rd to 10th best even at his peak. I agree the lead shouldn't have citations in it, other than for controversial material, and will work to move those out of the lead (since none of it is likely to be controversial) before going to FA, without losing any information or citations in the article as a whole. PS: The end of the "made a fortune" sentence is covered by the same sources, the cites are just put on the quoted phrase because it's a direct quotation. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing them up SMcCandlish! I usually do some minor cleaning/copyediting before reviewing, but I concluded that this met the criteria as it was comprehensive, well written and broad in coverage. It's always hard to pick out what thesis statements are! JAGUAR 11:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and thanks for the reviewing. I wonder if the material near the quote can be moved around to put the quote at the end without making the sentence ungainly. I don't want to double up citations right near each other, but the FA people might raise the same flag. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 16:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]