Jump to content

Talk:2012 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: Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs) 03:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to take a look. The article seems to be in pretty good shape, which means my comments will probably consist mainly of nitpicks or suggestions that you can feel free to disregard. For the record, I don't know the first thing about snooker, so bear with me. (Hopefully I'll learn something!) Comments are below, in no particular order. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

As expected, no serious problems. More comments to come, hopefully later today. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start working on these, Lee: you won't step on my toes. More comments forthcoming. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running out of things to nitpick, so I'll put this on hold. Again, most of these points aren't critical for purposes of GA promotion, so feel free to ignore them if you like. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    All my prose quibbles have been resolved; the article is comprehensible for non-experts.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Sources are reliable.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Lots of primary source usage, but that's to some extent unavoidable given the topic, and in any event there are no overt OR issues.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig finds only common phrases and reverse copyvio.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Strikes a good balance between detail and brevity.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    The fair-use rationale strikes me as reasonable, and the remaining images are freely licensed.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    No issues, although you might add alt-text
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Good work, as always. Cheers! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]