Talk:2006 World Snooker Championship/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 19:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 07:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one! Expect initial remarks in a few hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go section by section.

Lead

All fine

Overview

Done

~~the tense changes at random in places~~
- The only bit I see is where it describes the championship still being at Sheffield, which it still is. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - striked, the grammar just made me think there were random tense changes
"by Embassy as had": comma in between
- Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8 is a tabloid, and says 3 years. Ref-9 is dead. And shouldn't it be "for the next five", not "in the next five"?
- Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - ? Ref 9 is dead?
"some players who lost": comma
- The sentence says "some people who lost income", not some people who lost. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - added comma in a diff place, you can check to see if it looks correct
are rival firms: were rival firms
money and also:money, and also
- I've just removed also as better (avoid WP:CINS) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Championship the winner's: comma
- Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Will review later

Main draw

All fine

Qualification

Mention that there were bye instead of just showing it
The formatting for prelimanary looks weird
- Yeah, I rarely touch these tables. It's because the prelim quali is often one or two rounds (or even just a few matches), this one is a bit larger Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I changed the table formatting a bit, is it fine? Also, could you add some prose to explain the format? Just a line or two of "they started in different rounds, recieving byes of whatever reason" etc?
    - Sure. I've added a comment on this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Century brakes

52 century breaks in the qualifying stage- does that include the preliminary qualifying?
- The source says "pre-TV", so I assume so. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine

References and Images

Images all fine
References- Why is "Chris Turner's Snooker Archive" reliable?

Butting in here... there was a discussion at RSN about this source in 2022. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, basically we've discussed it a lot. Chris Turner is the guy who did all the snooker stats for the BBC and Eurosport. He's basically the snooker Historian (or was). I've used it successfully on FACs previously Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

breakingnews.ie- this doesn't work, then redirects: update
- Updated Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine
Why is snookerdatabase.co.uk reliable? Done
- I don't think I'd argue for it being so. I have removed this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ref-40 is a tabloid~~
- Sure, but we don't completely deprecate tabloid news, simply those that have a history of being unreliable. In this case, the statement being made is hardly contentious. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine (I was just saying it might be better to use better sources, even for minor things)
Refs 60, 62, 64 are also dead
- A ref being dead isn't a reason to remove it. They are labelled dead because no archive has been found. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll AGF (based on the other refs) that they verify the data. Atleast remove the 4 dead URLs though?
    - Why? We are citing the website - even if it's dead, that doesn't mean we aren't citing it. We don't remove references simply because they are inaccessible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - They(refs 9, 59, 61, 63 of the current version) are't citing a website though, they are citing newspapers. Just remove the urls, keep the headlines
is snooker.org reliable?
- Sure. It's an award winning website for statistics (BBC and others have given it awards). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay
worldsnooker.org archive links don't work
- Oh, that is not true. They do work, it's just that the text is white on a white background. Yes, it's dumb, also, I don't know how we'd fix that. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ohh, I see, fine then

@Lee Vilenski: found archive links for all 4, add them to the article DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-finals

all fine

Final

all fine

Second round

all fine

Quarter-finals

Done

"twice of 83 and of 113":twice each of both?
"...said Doherty afterwards.":Doherty said afterwards
"accidentally potting the pink":"accidentally potted the pink"
- Fixed all three. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First round

Done

Please split the paragraphs, they are hard to read.
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"said Parrott afterwards.": Parrott said afterwards.
- Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~", said Hunter.": Hunter stated, "quote"~~
- I don't see how that is an improvement. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~regretted Hawkins: Hawkins regretted (just change all similar constructions, if I forgot to list any, they read weirdly)~~
- I'm wondering if it's a BritEng thing, because it sounds much worse than way round to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could be, I was wondering if it was an ENGVAR thing. Struck two remarks
"said Williams afterwards.: Williams said afterwards
- Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

Checking every 10th ref in general
Ref-1: 1927 Camkin's Hall, Birmingham Joe Davis
Ref-11: the loss of tobacco sponsorship had dealt the sport a major blow.
Ref-21: last ever match of Hunter's career.
Ref-31: a 10-6 win
Ref-41: Fu also credited coach Terry Griffiths
Ref-50: Resuming at 8-8
Ref-62: a 16-8 lead
Ref-70: (bracket)
Ref-78: Here are the number of centuries

Overall

That's all for now, will review the rest later. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: could you split some of the paragraphs, especially in First round, to like 8-10 lines max. Bcs they can get a little hard to read. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: added and replied to remarks, just need to check round 1. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: a few minor issues for round 1, and replied to some of your replies. Ping me when you're done. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: replied, seems like only the ref issue is left. I'll give the article another quick read and pass it in a few hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. The bot was happy after changing these URLs, so they have web archives now too. Thanks for finding them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A second glance and a spot-check revealed no issues either. Happy to pass to GA, well done and congratulations, Lee Vilenski DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2025 (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, as shown by a source spot-check. 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:
· · ·

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.