Jump to content

Talk:1972 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: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed an article on snooker before but, having been impressed by the work of BennyOnTheLoose as part of the WiG "Women and the Environment" editathon event, I thought this would be interesting. A review will follow shortly. simongraham (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

This is a stable and well-written article. 81.6% of authorship is by BennyOnTheLoose. It is currently ranked C class.

  • The article is of appropriate length, 1,793 words of readable prose, plus an infobox.
  • The lead looks small, with only 121 words split into two paragraphs. I suggest making it a single paragraph and/or adding a bit more. I suggest including something about the challenges that were experienced during the games and more on the long-term impacts.
  • It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies that "violation unlikely", with the highest similarity online 5.7% with the history page of the WPSBA.
  • Citations seem to be thorough.
  • Chris Turner's and the Global Snooker websites seem to be self-published. The Global Snooker Centre also seems to be a fansite. As per WP:SPS these are to be avoided. Please replace the references with reliable sources.
  • There is a nice piece in the Belfast Telegraph by Mark Bain in 26 February 2022 celebrating 50 years of the event. I suggest referencing this if you can.
  • The other references appear to be from a wide range of reputable sources.
  • The text seems to be neutral and shows a balanced perspective.
  • Suggest linking the venues (e.g. Bolton, Ealing, Sheffield and Southampton).
  • The sentence "There was an entry fee of £100 per player, with the intention that the winner would receive 60% of the combined entry fees, and the winner 40%, with gate receipts after expenses also going to players." seems confusing. If the winner received both 60% and 40%, would it not be easier to say that they received 100%, or is it the runner-up that received 40%?
  • I believe that "Ecclesfield Ex-servicemen's Club" should be "Ecclesfield Ex-Servicemen's Club", although Google has not heard of the venue. Please check this is correct.
  • "Pulman took a 2–0 lead against Higgins, but was 2–3 behind before finish their first day the odd frame ahead at 4–3." does not read well. Please amend the grammar.
  • Replace "Spencer then produce his third century break of the match" with "Spencer then produced his third century break of the match".
  • Suggest replacing "whilst" with "while" as I feel it is better understood by an international audience.
  • I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
  • The comment on the increased news attention is excellent, but I think needs more support from sources if possible. I also believe the Championship was sponsored after 1976. Is this also a consequence of the better coverage? Can this be justified from reputable sources?
  • Amended the references, let me know what you think now. In terms of sponsorship, Park Drive sponsored the 1973 tournament (more details now in the article) and the 1974 one (£10,000 prize money). There was no sponsor in 1975, then Embassy started their sponsorship in 1976 (£15,300). There are reliable sources, but I wasn't keen to add too much to an article that should mainly focus on 1972. Again, let me know what you think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a discussion in the talk page on Spencer's final score that has been resolved by consensus.
  • There is no evidence of edit wars.
  • The article has no images. I suggest adding some appropriate illustrations, such as a photo of the young Alex Higgins (although there does not seem to be one from 1972 currently on Wikimedia commons), of John Spencer (there is one of him from 1971 [[1]]) or of the trophy.
  • I've really got doubts about whether the Spencer picture is the original uploader's own work - looks like quite a few files that they uploaded have been deleted from Commons, and the image looks very much like a scan from a newspaper or magazine. (Similarly, I really have concerns about the 1968 picture of Higgins on Commons.) The trophy used in 1972 was the one from the World Professional Match-play Championship, not the current one that dates from 1927. I'll have a think about pictures. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Excellent work so far. I have a few comments. Please tell me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, simongraham. I've made a start on addressing your comments. If you don't mind, could you allow me a few days to see if there is a consensus about Chris Turner's site? I've posted something at the reliable sources noticeboard here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: That is fine. Please ping me when you are ready. simongraham (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham: Sorry for the long delay. Hopefully I've addressed most of your concerns now. I'm still a bit doubtful about pictures, but if you think [2] and/or [3] are OK, then I'll add the appropriate cropped versions. 14:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@BennyOnTheLoose: That is perfectly reasonable. I feel either of those could work well if suitably cropped. I find that an image in the infobox makes a big difference to the way that I look at an entry and how important I think it is. simongraham (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Simongraham: Template:Infobox individual snooker tournament only has a "logo" parameter, not a general image one, so I added images in the body. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose: Thank you. That looks excellent. I'll complete the assessment now. simongraham (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

The six good article criteria:

  1. It is reasonable well written.
    the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
    it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    all inline citations are from reliable sources;
    it contains no original research;
    it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
    it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
  3. It is broad in its coverage
    it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
    it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. It has a neutral point of view.
    it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
  5. It is stable.
    it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations, BennyOnTheLoose. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1972_World_Snooker_Championship/GA1&oldid=1108582552"