Jump to content

Talk:James Cahill (snooker player)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on James Cahill (snooker player). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:James Cahill (snooker player)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DanCherek (talk · contribs) 22:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this article! I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria and will post my comments below. DanCherek (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]

Career

[edit]
  • His father's name is Patrick, not Peter, per BBC source
  • Seems weird to give match results for all except for Darryl Hill, maybe include that 5–1?
  • Is there a source for "only ever occurrence of a whitewash in the final"?
  • "losing to Joe Perry 6–3, and Ken Doherty 4–0 respectively": "respectively" is not needed here as there is no ambiguity
  • he "couldn't believe how badly [he] had played" → he couldn't "believe how badly [he] played" per exact quote from source
  • "the second event, to Jamie Cope" — should specify the scores here like you do with the other two
  • Quote box: I don't think you need to put the exact same quote in the reference itself, seems redundant
  • Quote box should be moved down one paragraph so that it is placed next to the text about Ronnie O'Sullivan
  • I don't see the "giant killer" detail in either of the cited sources
  • "returned to being an amateur player" recommend adding "in June 2021" per lead

Personal life

[edit]
  • Ref 49 goes to the same link as ref 4
  • Can you wikilink to the appropriate "Preston"? There appears to be a gazillion of them in England
  • ban from driving: I would specify that it was a 1-year ban and that it happened in 2015
  • "money and valuables being stolen": from the source, it looks like just money was stolen, no mention of valuables

Additional comments

[edit]

This is close! Putting this nomination on hold so that edits and/or responses can be made. If you have time, I have a peer review open here for what I'm hoping will be my first FAC, and any comments would be appreciated! DanCherek (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I have two remaining questions, though they are minor and will not hold up the promotion of this article so I will pass it in the meantime. Congratulations! The first question is the "Career finals" thing which I responded to above. The second is that Preston is a disambiguation page. I was going to fix it myself but was not sure whether to link to Preston, Lancashire or City of Preston, Lancashire (or another one). DanCherek (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed