Talk:2002 Masters (snooker)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 16:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Review comments

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my comments. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check. Used Earwig's Copyvio Detector and reviewed all matches over 3.8%. No concerns - matches are either appropriately used quotations or common phrases.
Images OK. Could consider "compiled" rather than "made" in the O'Sullivan caption.
No edit wars.
Infobox is fine.
Overview

I think the first sentence implies that there were 16 competitors in 1975, which wasn't the case. (Looks like it was from 1983 that there were 16.) I suggest separating the sentence about 1975 and starting the next sentence with something like "For the 2002 Masters..."
Consider adding something like "[World Snooker Championship]" after "Embassy in Hendry's quote, as otherwise the connection will probably not be clear to all readers.
Prize money and total are as per sources but the total doesn't seem right. ~~(I'll check my arithmetic later.)~~ Suggest leave as is, there could be some rounding in the sources.

"a 5–2 deficit" should be "a 2–5 deficit" I think.
"after being unchallenged" - suggest reword, as this seems a stronger statement than the source supports.
"following a clearance from the brown ball to the pink ball in frame seven" - unsupported by the archive of the source.

"Both of the first round winners played those ranked 1st to 14 in the second round from 3 to 6 February" - slight reword to the effect that "Both of the first round winners and those ranked 1st to 14th played in the second round..."
"3–2 behind" to "2–3 behind"
"on breaks of 101, 69 and 69" to "with breaks of 101, 69 and 69"? (Won four frames in the period being discussed, so not all winning breaks are specified. The use of "on" in White's match looks OK. I'm open to the idea of being convinced that the use of "on" is fine, which would cover some later comments too.)
"from 4–1 behind" to "from 1–4 behind"

"Hunter led 3–1 on a break of 54 and a century break of 105 in the fourth frame" - as above, I'm not sure about "on" here.
"A non-final Masters match record crowd" - reads slightly awkwardly to me; suggest rewording, whilst still avoiding reuse of the phrase utilised in the source.
"led 3–1 on breaks of 51 and 50" - as above.
"reduced the deficit to 5–4" to "reduced the deficit to 4–5"
"White reduced the deficit to 5–4 following errors in O'Sullivan's play and came from 35 points behind the latter who went in-off on that score to compile a 72 clearance in frame ten to force a final frame decider." - I think needs some punctuation somewhere around "who went in-off on that score to compile a 72 clearance" for the benefit of readers not familiar with the game.
"Hendry was 3–2 ahead on breaks" - as above.

"Breaks of 108 and 73 clinched him frames eight to ten to require a final frame decider" - two breaks can only clinch two frames.

"show the remainder of the seeds in the tournament" - I think "remainder of" is not required - O'Brien is here too.
"The bold text in the table indicate winning frame scores and denote the winning finalist." Shouldn't this be "The bold text in the table indicates winning frame scores and denotes the winning finalist."?

Thanks for all your work on the article, MWright96. A few minor points above, some of which are repeats of each other. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Have addressed points where possible MWright96 (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, MWright96. I'm satisfied that this now meets GA standards. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]