Talk:2007 Welsh Open (snooker)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria - Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It contains copyright infringements - Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). - CopyVio detector comes up with a few things, but seems unlikely when I checked the sources. Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. - Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links

I'd usually use the dispenser for this, but it's currently out of service. May do a manual one, and check again if the dispenser is back up before the end of the review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lede

"The 2007 Welsh Open was the 2007 edition of the Welsh Open professional snooker tournament and was held from 12 to 18 February 2007 at the Newport Centre in Newport, South East Wales." - Is it worth mentioning that the tournament was first held in 1992, or that it was the 16th version of the event? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I like commenting on their semifinals. I'd either mention who Robertson beat along to winning the event - Notable wins, or nothing at all. Just mentioning who they beat in the semis seems incomplete to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Have mentioned who Robertson beat en route to the final. MWright96 (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"500-1 outsider" is ok, but perhaps it would be important to note that it was just his third appearance in the main stages of a professional competition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have "maximum break" in the lede. As much as it is wikilinked, a 147 is still jargon Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summary

"in 1992 initially in February after the Masters, " taking place after the MastersBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"but later took the spot of the Classic in January." later replaced the Classic in January. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and the host broadcasters were BBC Cymru Wales and Eurosport - Was there no international broadcast? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That information for this particular competition is unavailable online. MWright96 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Day, one of four Welshmen competing in the 48-player tournament - As much as this is probably the correct way to write this, as you mentioned Ryan Day in the previous paragraph, it may be prudent to say Ryan Day here. I was quite confused by this, as the sentence before is talking about O'Sullivan. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'm ok with the quote here ""I feel as if I'm still playing well and I would like to build with another good run in the Welsh. I'm up to 12th in the latest rankings, so if I can do well in Newport I can virtually guarantee my top-16 place."". It seems out of place. I'm sure lots of people commented on their chances pre-tournament. To single him out seems weird (if he was defending champion, or eventual champion/runner up this would be fine. The Dott quote is fine for this reason). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed entirely. MWright96 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifying should mention the structure of qualifying (IE, it's three rounds), with higher rated players getting byes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"All matches were best-of-nine frames until the semi-finals." - This should not be in the qualifing section. Either background, or round 1. This should simply say the qualifying rounds were all best of 9-frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I like the wording "The other successful qualifiers", seeings the last sentence talked about an unsuccessful qualifier. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Preece being 47–2 ahead in the first frame" - Is this notable? A 45 point lead isn't too much in snooker. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. MWright96 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Another whitewash occurred when Day was beaten 5–0" - Same note as before. When was Ryan Day last mentioned in the article? It was two subsections ago. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an ongoing thing throughout the article. Is this a common thing? Using a last name is fine, but normally only if it's been introduced reasonably closely in the article.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Referring to players by their surname is common on this encyclopedia. MWright96 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
breaks of 87, 87 and 65" - Seems like this should say "two breaks of 87 and a 65..." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"(a 135 clearance and runs of 123, 102 and 101) " - is runs a technical name for a break? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a word, I think "defeated" is better than "beat". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the third round on 15 February[4] O'Sullivan won 5–1 against Selby - held on Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He claimed the first frame on the pink ball - first frame by potting the pink ball Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few cites are inside a sentence here. It's probably best to move them to the end of the sentence for flow - unless the information is contentious Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trailing 2–0[26] Burnett recovered to 4–2 and he forced a final frame decider with a break of 104 in frame seven and he claimed the eighth on the blue ball after Murphy missed an easy brown ball shot. Murphy won frame nine unchallenged - I'm not sure recovering is right here, I'd say "after trailing 2-0, and 4-2, Burnett recovered and forced a final frame decider by scoring a break of 104 in frame seven, and claiming frame eight by potting the blue ball, after Murphy missed a simple brown ball pot." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But Robertson - However, Robertson Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doherty made breaks of 99 and 111 to tie with Maguire but the latter drew clear to claim a 5–3 victory, his first win against Doherty in three attempts - There needs to be more context here. Doherty made these breaks to tie at 2-2 or 3-3? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter-finals onwards

"Higginson achieved the highest break in the tournament with the first maximum break of his career, the third in the history of the Welsh Open and the 56th in professional competition in the second frame of his 5–1 victory over Carter" - Reword. Higginson scored a maximum break in the second frame of his 5-1 victory over Ali Carter. The maximum was Higginson's first, the third in the history of the Welsh Open, and the 56th professional maximum in competition. - Or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Carter prevented a whitewash with a break of 54 in frame five and Higginson won the match with a break of 104 - Edit for flow. Carter prevented the whitewash... however, Higginson... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
which O'Sullivan nullified with breaks - I hate this terminology. Winning two frames doesn't nullify or negate the first two. O'Sullivan tied with is much better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
contact with the yellow ball and the latter won frame six on a red ball. - What does that even mean? Winning on the black means that one player was only 7 or less points ahead; winning on a red seems a little irrelevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "Both semi-final matches held on 17 February 2007 were increased to beat of 11 frame matches." This shows enphasis on it being more than prior rounds. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
" prevented Davis from challenging for his first ranking tournament title" - strictly speaking, simply entering the event is challenging for the title. Say his first final Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Davis began by winning" - Davis won the opening frame, with Robertson responding Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quote by Neil is quite long. Probably need to summarize. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for a while on the term "defeat of" in "with his defeat of Maguire". I thought this meant Maguire defeated him? I couldn't find much on the subject, [1] didn't help. However, "defeat over" negates this completely. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The best-of-17 frames final was played against Robertson and Higginson on 18 February" I don't think this is quite what you meant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"second triumph in a world ranking tournament" - Are there other types of ranking events? Just remove the word world. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like a re-structure of the final. I'd want to see information of the final (scores and such), and a later paragraph on what this meant for Robertson and the press. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & References

These look good. Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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 (reference section): 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 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:

General comments

As I have only three edits on the page (One of which was a title change, and another editing the wikidata.) I don't feel I have enough COI to not review this article. Let me know if there's any issues with the above review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna place this one on hold. Two of my biggest issues is that the names are all last names (and that can get quite confusing), and some of the prose needs tightening. Some of my issues/suggestions are above. It shouldn't be too difficult to improve however. Let me know if you would like me to explain anything I've said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Lee Vilenski: Hopefully that is all the the necessary changes made and have replied where appropriate. MWright96 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]