Jump to content

Talk:Slosh (cue sport)/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: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 09:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through. Comments to follow shortly.

Initial comments

[edit]

The article needs some work before it meets GA criteria 1 and 2. A few of the points below are merely optional stylistic suggestions, but others require attention if the article is to pass GAN.

  • One can work out what you are trying to say in the first sentence, but the grammar doesn't work. A main verb is missing in the second half.
  • The second sentence contains "the game … the game … the game" – not really good enough to meet criterion 1 ("A good article is well written").
  • What does "intrinsically linked" mean?
  • "The game … is sometimes misappropriated" – do you mean the name is misappropriated? I doubt if one can misappropriate a game.
  • Other names for the game include … and simply as Russian pool. You have forgotten by the end of the sentence the grammatical construction with which you began it. The "as" has no place here.
  • Why "simply" Russian pool? Is that simpler than Russian Billiards or Indian Billiards?
  • What is a "ruleset"? It is unknown to the OED and Chambers Dictionary. If you mean "different rules", why not say so in plain words?
  • The second sentence starts with what looks like a dangling modifier: the seven words before the first comma are not grammatically connected to the rest of the sentence.
  • "playing carom shots … Playing a cannon (hitting two object balls)" – you very properly blue link both technical terms, but you also add an inline explanation of one but not the other.
  • Comma splice in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
  • "If the shooter exceeds 100, the score is reduced to 50, and can continue their inning" – another syntactical tangle: you mean, I think, that the shooter can continue their inning, but you have actually said that the score can continue their inning.
  • "deducted from the players points" – possessive apostrophe lacking.
  • Ref 7: page number needed
  • Ref 8: as for ref 4
  • Inconsistency of methodology: Ref 15 includes the bibliographical details of Clarke's book, but those of all the other books cited are given in the bibliography.
  • Bibliography
  • It is usual, and a courtesy to your readers, to list books in alphabetical order of author. Your list seems wholly random in order.
  • Publications in the Burroughes & Watts series all had authors. The link you have provided to Daisyroots Books does not work, but as you have access to the book, you can probably find the name of the author on the title page.
  • Locations are given for most of the publishers but not Pearson or Wynant.
  • Spacing of initials: C.A. Pearson but D. D. Wynant. Best be consistent.
  • "Phelan, Michael (16 January 2017)" and "Brunswich-Balke Collendar Co. August 2010" – unusual to include the month. You don't add it to the others.
  • Stooke's book lacks publisher and location details.

There's a fair bit of work to do, and I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you the chance to address the above points. – Tim riley talk 09:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments after further read-through:
  • In "Origins" we have refs cited [10][9][11], in that order. Numerical order is usual.
  • In "Rules" we have [19][20][19] – superfluous duplication.
  • Note correct spelling of "Burroughes"
Over to you. Tim riley talk 10:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're nearly there, but there are still two places where the grammar goes awry:

  • A game for two to four players, the first shot must be played… This is a classic dangling modifier. What it says, syntactically, is that the first shot is a game for two to four players. I suggest something like "The game is for two to four players; the first shot must be played…"
  • If the shooter exceeds 100, the score is reduced to 50, but can continue their inning – this still says that the score can continue their inning. The last part of the sentence needs a clear and correct subject: "the score is reduced to 50, but the player can continue…

And there are two spelling mistakes: "pocketting" (four times) and "colored" (in the case of the latter I assume, perhaps wrongly, that the article is in BrE: there seems no connection with the US to prompt an American spelling). Other than these points, it's looking a great deal more like a GA. Tim riley talk 12:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think your approach to the bibliography section is eminently practical and sensible. The prose passes muster now, so:

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Well done! Tim riley talk 15:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slosh_(cue_sport)/GA1&oldid=1089217257"