Talk:Steve Davis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this article over the next few days, and then start to leave some comments. SilkTork *^YES! 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

I'll put comments down here as I'm reading through. I'll summarise the GA criteria points later. SilkTork *^YES! 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'm not sure that the fair use rationale for File:How to be really interesting by Steve Davis book cover.jpg is adequate. Please check at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
Remove I saw the question posted at *:MCQ. I don't see this image meeting fair use requirements. The subject of the article is Steve Davis, not the book, and the cover of the book does not add anything significant to the article, nor is the book seemingly discussed beyond a single sentence mentioning it. Were it to be removed, there would not be a detrimental loss of information. Written in the "purpose of use" of the image's fair-use rationale is "To show Davis was a published author", but the reader already knows he's a published author, because the text says he is (and it is cited). A copyrighted image is not needed to support this. If the book's cover were vitally important to the article and were discussed at length, then the image would have a better reason for remaining. Feel free to seek out another opinion as well; good luck on the GA! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed image. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, I didn't realize there was an entire paragraph that goes into the "interesting" nickname. I think, though, that the sentence about the book—written "with Geoff Atkinson"—should be moved up to the first paragraph to seal the deal. Davis was given the nickname "Interesting" and he played with the name, going so far as to write a book about "being Interesting". Oh, and the "purpose of use" definitely needs to be updated. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated "purpose of use". Hope it's good now. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to lie, I still think the image barely holds any fair-use water—keep in mind that the image must make "a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone." I will add this language to the rationale, and we'll see what happens. I saw that The Rambling Man really wanted it in there, so let me fix his image description a bit more. His source link doesn't work, so I'll find a new source as well. Then you may have to bring in a third opinion as to whether or not the image should be allowed to stay or if it should be removed. Also, did you notice the "Images" section (Talk:Steve_Davis#Images) on the article's talk page? I think that at least one of the images on Flickr would be a nice touch to the article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the book cover rationale appears to be ok now, so its use is acceptable. You may find some of these links useful to support the "interesting" name itslef: Daily Telegraph, The Sun BBC Sport and this YouTube Davis interview that includes the Spitting Image skit. ww2censor (talk) 16:13,

If anyone raises a further issue with this image, but others feel it is important, the obvious solution is to add more material about the book (critical reception, etc.), create a redirect to this section in this article from the book's title, and make it clear that the current article is also the article on the book unless and until there is a need for the book to have its own separate article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Steve Davis.jpg - this has a claim of permission for the Dutch Wikipedia, but not for the English. This should either be removed or appropriate permission sought.
This file was deleted from the Dutch Wikipedia. Removed image from article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Wiki stevedavis upload.jpg - this is OK. SilkTork *^YES! 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MoS

The lead needs developing per WP:Lead. SilkTork *^YES! 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded lead. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work - this is much better. The lead would still benefit from a brief overview of his life, though as I'm looking at the article there may be some minor changes, so it would be OK to leave further development of the lead until the review is finished. I'm thinking of Davis's early life here, which is missing from the article. It is conventional in the main body to have birth date and place and education, and development of the skills or interests for which the subject is known. Do we know where Davis was educated? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any information about education, parent and development of skills. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Precise_language, the word "recent" should be avoided. I would suggest changing the section header from "Recent years" to something more specific, or even just "later years". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split section in two and neither of the contains ther word recent. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but actually avoid "later years" as it implies that the subject is dead. We don't know that these are his later years yet, since he could live to be 120+ (the world record is older, and medical technology improves all the time), with these thus being his middle years. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There us no "Later years" section in the article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off the table section

I tweaked the beginning of the "Off the table" section a little, but I noticed a few problems. I brought the "Interesting" book into the section discussing the nickname "interesting", keeping the "play upon this image" phrase, since it works perfectly this way. I did not make the connection between the original edit, an "Interesting" nickname being played off by being a pundit or a commentator on some TV show. The two subjects didn't seem to have anything to do with one another. The "Spitting Image" citation links—both archived and original (since sometimes, though rarely, they differ)—don't mention any "interesting" nickname at all. I would try to locate some good sources. I saw The Telegraph made reference to "Interesting", but I didn't read through the entire article to see if it mentions Spitting Image. Also, IMDb is a user-contributed source, so it's not considered reliable in certain circumstances. I think it's okay to cite IMDb to show that Davis appeared in They Think It's All Over, but the pundit remark needs to be sourced. In fact, the BBC snooker coverage should be sourced, since the IMDb citation only links to They Think It's All Over. If you can find an article that mentions Davis as appearing on the quiz show, this would be stronger than the IMDb link. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added a source for pundit and the "Interesting" nickname. As I know IMDb is only considered unreliable to biography information, thus it should be acceptable in this case. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems to cover personal life, as well as his media work, and might be usefully split into two. The title is odd - is this snooker WP:Jargon? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Split section into three. Grouped sports related information (other than snooker) into "Other sports", and the remaining info is in "In other media" and "Personal Life". Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is (was? I'm not sure what it will say later today) snooker/pool/billiards jargon in a way, but in a form that is readily understood by most, because the on/off metaphor is used everywhere, like on vs. off the court in tennis, on vs. off the field in football, on vs. off the ice in hockey, on vs. off the stage/screen in acting, and so on. Losing it wouldn't hurt anything, though. I agree that the article is well-developed enough now that splitting this information into more specific sections is a good idea. If this were a stub I wouldn't do that, but we clearly have enough for personal, media, other sports. I'm not sure that "other media" works, though. I would arrange this article by his life as a snooker player, his roles in the media (naturally most snooker-oriented), and his personal life, not lump snooker playing and snooker media into one snooker categories, and other media shunted into another. It's confusing for the reader that way, because it implies that he's especially notable in non-snooker media, which he isn't. If in snooker retirement he became a best-selling horror novelist or something, that would be a different case. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I couldn't come up with anything better for "other media". Section mostly contains info about books, music and television appearances (not related to snooker). Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Prose is mostly clear, though could do with a copyedit as there are basic errors in the lead alone with missing words - "Outside of snooker Davis is known writer and a pool player." Should be either "... is a known writer..." or "...is known as a writer..." - "He is also a former World Doubles champion with Tony Meo, won the World Cup four times with England." Why is there an "however" and an "also" in this sentence: "Davis' extensive list of achievements, however, also include victory in the UK Championship, the Masters and the Premier League." This sentence ends on a different point to the start - "He has won more professional titles in the sport than any other player, including six World Championships during the 1980s, when he was the world number one for seven years and reached eight world finals, becoming the sport's first millionaire." Split into two sentences? I haven't checked the rest of the article for prose, though dipping in here and there I find casual language and inappropriate idioms such as "clawed his way back", "gained a measure of revenge" - check with WP:WTA. Some paragraphs are fairly short, giving a choppy feel which inhibits flow. I don't think these matters are serious, and should be able to be fixed with half an hour's work. SilkTork *^YES! 11:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have rewritten the entire article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: "The event run..." - these should be "The event ran..." or "The event is run..." SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

While I did not go through the whole article in detail, I noted several words are wikilinked more than once, so unless they are absolutely necessary should be unlinked. Masters (snooker) and Classic (snooker) are just two examples I saw. Links that appear in tables are a separate issue but WP:REPEATLINK implies the same rule applies that within tables so one instance should be sufficient there too though I don't see editors enforcing it to any extent. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the most of the overlinking, but I think it should remain in the table. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a general (if unwritten? I haven't checked in ages) consensus (as is obvious from actual practice) that links should be repeated in tables unless readers are expected to actually read the entire table from top to bottom rather than look for specific entries in it (otherwise they are unlikely to see the original link in the table). Sport-related tables are rarely of the kind read from top to bottom; people are usually looking up a specific stat. Otherwise, yeah, there was overlinking there. This is a common problem in major snooker articles (and other high or "high-ish" traffic articles), because the subjects are popular and thus frequently edited by noobs, and by multiple editors per day who don't necessarily read the entire thing. Just something that has to be pruned from time to time. Armbrust, you are a very active snooker editor, so you might want to especially keep an eye on this problem in other articles as you "cruise" them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

There is a lot of table data at the bottom of the article. I'm wondering how much this impacts on GA criteria, and on general Wiki advice on readability and accessibility. There is the sense that the information is over precise per WP:NOT#STATS, and may be failing 3 (b) - "going into unnecessary detail", though tables are seen as an exception. MOS:COLLAPSE does indicate that "Collapsible sections may be used ... in tables which consolidate information covered in the prose", so I have considered if the best way of dealing with the situation is to collapse the tables; though there is the sense that is simply hiding the information. I looked at some FA articles on sports people - Alain Prost, Damon Hill, Sid Barnes, Lee Smith (baseball), Michael Jordan and Ian Thorpe and didn't find as much use of stats or tables. I think we may need to look at removing less-essential data, and/or presenting the data in a more compressed and reader-friendly form. There are, for example, some events tabled that are not notable enough for articles. And further, some tables that detail the results of "Non-ranking finals". As this is a general encyclopaedia entry rather than a detailed book, we should be looking at giving the reader the main information - filtering it for the reader so they are presented with the most important information, and leaving the minor details for the books. Can we look at condensing that data into one table that details his significant details? SilkTork *^YES! 11:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the tables should be filtered. There is two other snooker biography GA articles (Ronnie O'Sullivan and Shaun Murphy (snooker player)), and there was no problem with them. In the case of Davis its just, that he has won many more tournaments during his career. If the tables go in the way to promoting this article to GA, than be it. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking this afternoon that perhaps the data is in the same category as a discography/filmography/bibliography, so in the article you get the main information as in George_Orwell#Bibliography, while the extra detail is placed in a standalone article as in George Orwell bibliography. SilkTork *^YES! 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the idea, as it would be inconsistent with other snooker biography articles. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like consistency of style and format as it assists the reader to know what to expect. Though as regards information and how to present it in the most useful manner, that will vary according to circumstances. This article has more statistics than is needed - as such it is pushing against Wikipedia guidelines. When an article has a greater focus on detail than is needed, and is unbalancing the article, then by convention, consensus and long established guideline we either reduce, remove or split off the data. If you're not happy with splitting it off, then we are faced with reducing or removing it. I had considered if collapsing it would be appropriate, but I'm not sure - and if the info is hidden in a collapsed table, then it might as well be split off into a standalone article where the data can be reached the same way - with a simple click. While not every sports person has achievements that can fill a standalone article, there are some who do, and the achievements make decent stand alone list articles like List of Ricky Ponting's achievements and statistics, and many such lists become featured, such as List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan, List of Ricky Ponting's achievements and statistics, First-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace, International cricket centuries by David Gower, etc. And such lists of accomplishments are not confined to sport, you also get featured lists such as List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas. Splitting off such information into a standalone list article is firmly seen as a positive thing, while keeping it embedded in a parent article is seen as a negative thing. SilkTork *^YES! 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well even if it will be done later, I will not do it. Not even for bringing the article to GA class. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to do it, anyone can do it. There is a convention in GA reviews that the main reviewer lists what needs to be done (and other editors may join in with their observations); then various editors, including the nominator and the reviewer, can do the edits. It doesn't rest just on the nominator. At the same time, the GA reviewer is just another editor, and has no more and no less control of an article under review than any other editor. A GA reviewer cannot demand another editor do something. Nor can a GA reviewer implement a controversial change without discussion. I am a firm believer in discussion and negotiation. What I am feeling here is that the article as it currently stands does not meet relevant Wiki guidelines and so does not meet GA criteria. However, my interpretation of the guidelines is open to debate. What I am not clear on here is if you are objecting to my observations, or you are saying that you are personally not willing to do the work. If you are objecting, then it would be helpful for you to explain your objections. If it's that you are unwilling to do the work, then - as I said - someone else may do the work - it's not just down to you. I could do the work if you prefer. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tables are needed on this article, because without them the article wouldn't be complete. Tables contain not many stats, only the results. I would agree with you, if the table would contain other statistics too (for example pot, long pot and safety percentages). The tables shouldn't removed without consensus. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't the article be complete without the information in the tables? Tables are only a way of presenting information. It is the detail in the tables that is being questioned. Some of the important data is already mentioned in the article - it is the other, less important data, that is being questioned. For example - that Davis was a runner up in the Kit-Kat Break for World Champions, the Matchroom Professional Championship, and the Guangzhou Masters. Do you see that listing that he was a runner up in various minor tournaments might be seen as excessive detail which could be moved to a separate page, leaving this page just for the important detail. How is the general reader to work out from those lists of data which is important?

I'm quite comfortable with finishing the review and if you are still uncertain about removing some of the detail to a sub-article, asking for a second opinion. Though I'd like you to look more closely at the guidelines I've linked and see where you think my interpretation has erred. I may well be wrong (often am!), and information gained from this review will be useful when applied to other articles and reviews. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Nothing seriously wrong with it either way. The article is consistent with the treatment of other major snooker bios, including GAs. Splitting would be okay, too. It might even be a sign of WP:SNOOKER maturity as a project that some of its bio articles are being so well-developed that they are splitting. But it is actually an impediment to readability/usability to fork just one thing off of a main article like that. It's a different matter if the article is entirely done in WP:SUMMARY style with use of {{main}} in most or every section and a clipped "just the facts, ma'am" style - users quickly understand that the article is a "micro-portal" with most of the content in subarticles. But it's confusing to have a well-developed, self-contained article suddenly stop being well-developed and self-contained. A good example of how annoying this is, is a TV show article on a new series that has already forked off a "List of [whatever] episodes" subarticle, despite only having 2 episodes and no indication that it will ever have a second season (or series in UK English), and thus no actual need for such a subarticle; cf. The Borgias (2011 TV series). It's jarring, and a waste of both editor and reader time and effort. Anyway, I'll remain skeptical but neutral-ish, but wanted to point out that there are sane rationales in both directions (and actually more than one option, such as trimming the amount of detail but retaining the tables, or as you proposed making the tables collapsible, and so on). A split would be valid, but should only be done if a) the tabular data is seen as genuinely overwhelming or "TMI" in the context (and do consider that in the context of statistics-heavy sports like snooker, lots of stats are expected and would be considered a frustrating omission if hard to find), and b) there is enough data to make a good separate article (splitting content off into a stub often results in a re-merge after a while). But don't count me as your 2nd opinion; ask another regular GA reviewer, preferably one who commonly deals with sports bios. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about snooker relying on stats is well taken, though that is not the only topic to do so; cricket, for example, enjoys statistics - which is why I gave the examples above of some cricket articles. It would be worth putting article and sub-article side by side - Muttiah Muralitharan and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan; Ricky Ponting and List of Ricky Ponting's achievements and statistics; W. G. Grace and First-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace. No information is lost, and the stats are placed a click away (like turning a page), where those interested can closely consult them. I agree that there is a tendency sometimes to split too soon. Just as there is a tendency sometimes not to split. It's the careful and considered balance that we are looking for. Here's an example of what the split off article might look like - /Steve Davis stats - and that is far from a stub. That does have the makings of a featured list. What would remain in the parent article? That, I think, is what we should be discussing. I like the Performance timeline table, and that could be re-jigged slightly to carry the significant data, and be the table to remain. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the /Steve Davis stats has almost no context and find collapsing the tables a better option (although not good). Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 01:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

The article is rich with inline cites - every statement, questionable or not, gets a citation. I am fully supportive of that approach, and congratulate the contributors on their endeavours so far. My focus now is on the quality of the sources, and to check if the sources do support what is said. Has snooker.org been verified as a reliable source? It is a self-published amateur site - however, it has website awards, including from the BBC, and if a site is well respected, and cited by others, then we do accept it as reliable. I've looked in the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but couldn't find any previous discussions. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Hendon, snooker commentator for Eurosport, even call it best website on his blog. See there. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snooker sources aren't in abundance unfortunately, and it seems to be the case that the best sources of information are websites maintained by enthusiasts. The records and stats are often better kept than they are on the official WSA site. Nevertheless, there is a standard. One of the main criteria for assessing whether a source meets RS status is if other RS sources cite the source. Snooker Scene, the sport's leading magazine has a list of 'useful' links: http://www.snookerscene.co.uk/page.php?id=10; Under "News and Results" Snooker Scene lists four websites for news and results: the BBC, Eurosport, Global Snooker and WWW Snooker (http://www.snooker.org). If it's good enough for Snooker Scene it's good enough for in the context that it is presented i.e. news and results. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also - Chris Turner’s Snooker Archive. It looks a good site, but as it hasn't been through WP:RSN, it's worth asking the question there. Both these sites appear to be used on a good deal of other articles, so I should think they are OK. But as they are self-published, they need checking. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This site is maintained by Chris Turner, who is a sports writer, as can be seen there. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with Snooker.org above, Chris Turner's archive is listed by Snooker Scene under "Miscellaneous" as a "historical archive": http://www.snookerscene.co.uk/page.php?id=10; as above, if Snooker Scene regards it as quality source of information that is probably good enough for RS. Betty Logan (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, its frequent use in other articles here is a really good reason to check out its reliability, since few snooker articles have been through the GA wringer yet!. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked for books on Steve Davis and I'm surprised that such a popular and well known and important person doesn't have many books on him. However, there is Steve Davis: Snooker Champion, which is available for a 1p from Amazon. The article suggests that he has written only three books, though Amazon lists more including Successful Snooker, Play Snooker, a cook book, and Frame and Fortune. As this article currently doesn't make use of Steve Davis's own books, which I think would be useful, I would be reluctant to pass this on "broad coverage" until those sources (Steve Davis: Snooker Champion & Frame and Fortune) are consulted. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, incomplete info on him as an author is a significant factuality/completeness issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded section with more books. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a problem with the two main sources. As pointed out on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, the Wikipedia:BLP policy - which, as we know is strictly enforced - says: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject...". Until this article removes material which relies solely on those sources I cannot list it as a Good Article. The article needs appropriate sourcing - which will come from those books I mentioned which are written by Steve Davis. Has anyone ordered those books yet? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 01:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have neither the books, nor the money to order them. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of article

The Status section is very short, and doesn't adequately convey his achievements or status. It might be more useful to rename that section Achievements, and summarise his major achievements so far. These are given in the lead, but are then scattered in the article and not easy to find.SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved at the beginning of the "Career" section. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Off the table section might be usefully split into Davis's Media work and his Personal life, with appropriate section titles. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment in "#Off the table section". Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little more information on Davis's background would be appropriate and useful. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment in "#MoS". Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Performance timeline

This is a useful table. I think it would work better, though, if it were turned, so the dates come down the left column, and the tournament achievements are shown in each date row. This is a personal observation not a GA criteria, and based on the fact that one needs to scroll the table to see it all, whereas if it were arranged slightly differently, the info could be seen as a whole. If Davis didn't attend a tournament then it would be better not showing it, as that makes it clearer what he did and didn't enter. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This wouldn't beneficial to the article as it has too many rows and the table would need to be scrolled too. It would also made the addition of new tournaments unnecessarily difficult. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain that in more detail, Armbrust? Tables aren't particularly difficult to edit regardless what column comes first, so I'm not following your meaning here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was my personal opinion. I think it's easier to edit the table in it's current form (for example if an event is discontinued, you can move all information related to it with one cut & paste) and is also consistent with other snooker bio articles. And the suggested change couldn't solve the reviewers problem with the scrolling. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

This is a useful article which currently needs a little more work to meet the GA criteria. The sourcing relies heavily on two web sites whose reliability needs to be verified, and does not make use of books on or by the subject. As such it will not pass 2 (b). The lead needs a little more building, and more consideration given to organisation of the article, so this doesn't quite meet 1 (b). There is too much focus on the stats at the bottom of the article, while a useful summary of Davis's achievements is lacking from the main body; at the same time a little more information regarding Davis's early life would be worthwhile. Article doesn't fully meet 3. There is still a questionable image in the article. I think the work needed to reach GA status is not that much, though it is likely that obtaining the books by Davis's will take a couple of days, plus a few days to read, so I will put this on hold for 14 days, though will close earlier if sufficient work is done within this time. I will get a second opinion on the question of criteria 3 (b) - "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" when/if that remains the only sticking point. I can be reached on my talkpage or by email, though I will drop by here now and again to see how things are developing. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 13:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a lot of work has been done while this GAN has been on hold. Well done to everyone involved, especially in replacing the snooker.org with more reliable sources.
The questionable image is still in place. This cannot be passed for GA while that issue is not resolved.
Has the overlinking been addressed? Dennis Taylor was linked at least four times in the text and Alex Higgins twice. They were the only names I checked. Be worth someone doing a careful check on the rest of the article. Noticing a lot of red links to Classic I hovered over two of these,and they both went to 1987. The nature of the linking makes checking them at a glance quite difficult, as sometimes an event is given a full name, and sometimes an abbreviation by date and sometimes by name. I can see the rationale for linking to articles on these events, though it would be helpful to have some form of consistency so the reader knows what is behind the link.
The Chris Turner source is still being used. This cannot be listed as a GA with sources that are disallowed by policy.
I note that the books by Davies, which might be useful sources, are still not being used. Has someone acquired them and discovered that the information is not useful?
I will ask for a second opinion on the data in the tables when we are in a position that the tables are the deciding factor in this being listed as a GA.
As progress is being made I will put on hold for another 7 days to allow the image question to be resolved; the Chris Turner source to be replaced; and the overlinking to be double checked. I haven't checked through broad coverage, nor read through the prose, and will do that when I next look. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Images OK. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stable. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has reference section. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too much unnecessary detail. Will get second opinion on this later. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails reliable references check. The Chris Turner site is still being used even though that is against BLP policy. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead still needs development. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't appear to indulge in any original research, and appears fair and neutral. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to cover main points, though it would seem appropriate to consult major or significant sources, such as Davis's two autobiographies, before passing this as broad coverage. There is, sadly (and surprisingly, given his importance in snooker), little info on Davis other than brief newspaper mentions and stats on snooker sites, so it would be inappropriate to pass this as broad coverage until the main sources are consulted. The two books only cost 1p + postage from Amazon, so money shouldn't be a bar to someone interested in this topic. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The prose could do with a little more attention - there are some short paragraphs, and some sentences appear quite short while others are quite long, and there are a few casual words, such as "whitewash", though this is fairly minor. The article is fairly dense with dates and stats, though this may be due to the nature of the sources consulted, and on the whole the prose is clear enough to convey meaning and meets the GA criteria. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended. There is a lot of linking in the article which doesn't aid readability. Be more selective over what needs linking, and reduce the less important links. Baked beans, for example, doesn't need linking. If the link is not important to an understanding of the article, then remove it. I have removed some links in a small section as I was reading. More can go. And I question the need to link to every tournament that Davis appeared in. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see that work is still taking place on the article, and some issues, such as the contentious image, have been dealt with. However, there are still a number of remaining aspects that need attention, and if more substantial progress is not made in the next 7 days it might be better to close this GAN and return to it later, giving people more time to address the issues, if they can. If the excessive detail is the only remaining issue by June 9, then I will get a second opinion, but if there are still other significant issues, such as the referencing, then I will close. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close: Not listed

The Chris Turner source is still being used, so this article cannot be listed as a Good Article. Before closing, I think it's worth saying that while it would be useful to consult Davis's biographies, the article appears to be broad enough to pass the GA criteria on coverage without it. Other than that, the comments immediately above still apply, and would be the areas that editors need to work on to improve this article. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]