Jump to content

Talk:2020 Masters (snooker)/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: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 10:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


(I'll be looking to claim points for the 2020 WikiCup for this review.)

Lee Vilenski: I've put in a first round of comments. Happy to be challenged and discuss. Rodney Baggins: Pinging you in case you have any views on my comments - I think that you might! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose: Sorry I didn't get round to looking at this in time, but I see you've just got it promoted to GA anyway, well done! I'll take a look through in case there's anything further to add/improve. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Part 2:

  • Earwig Copyvio too shows some high percentages, but it looks like these are largely due to other sites taking text from Wikipedia. I had a look through everything showing over 5% on the Earwig tool - no concerns.
  • No MOS:SNOOKER or other MoS problems that I could see.
  • Article is well written, covers the event appropriately and is neutral as per WP:NPOV.
  • I'm happy with the reponses from Lee Vilenski to my earlier comments.
  • Only one pending issue - the reference for "The pair had a 9—8 record of matches won in previous play in favour of Bingham" doesn't seem the be the right one. I've amended the wording as I believe it's matches.

Comments:

  • Lead: "The event featured the top 16 players" - not quite true, as per the following paragraph in the lead. Re-use wording from overview section? ("top-16 players from the snooker world rankings ... invited to participate")
  • Lead: "It was organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association." Is it more appropriate to say by World Snooker Tour, as per the overview section? WPBSA site says that "WST is a commercial events company, it holds the exclusive right granted from the WPBSA to own and operate WST" Source here
  • Main draw - add a comment to explain that the numbers to the left of the players' names are their seedings?
  • First round: "Ding, on a break of 41, and being likely to win the frame, broke down" Consider using an alternative phrase for "break down," to avoid confusion with "break" or "breakdown"
  • First round: Instead of "Trump's third was his 678th, which took him into third—above Neil Robertson—highest career century breaks" how about something like "Trump's third was his 678th in competitive play. This took him into third—above Neil Robertson—in the list of players making the most career century breaks"?
  • First round: Instead of "Higgins was the first highest-ranked player to win their opening round match." I think it's "higher" rather than "highest." Might be worth qualifying the statement bit, as it's only for this year at this tournament - or maybe that goes without saying as that's what the article is about?
  • Semi-finals: "sole remaining winner of a previous event, Shaun Murphy." Suggest amending - is it previous Masters event?
  • Semi-finals: reword "The first frame featured a break of 68 from Carter, which he later won after some safety play." He won the frame, not the break.
  • Final: "Both players were from Essex" - not supported by the live version of the RTE source at the end of the sentence. Is there any further context, e.g. first "all-Essex" final?
  • Final: "had a competitive head-to-head record of eight wins each" - not supported by the live version of the RTE source at the end of the sentence.
  • Final: Suggest making it explicit that Reardon was the previous oldest winner.
  • "Caption: "John Higgins (pictured at the event) was just one of two higher seeded players to win their opening round match." How about "...one of just two...."?
  • I've made a few uncontroversial (I believe) amendments.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Masters_(snooker)/GA1&oldid=949016939"