Wikipedia:Peer review/Carom billiards/archive1

Carom billiards

I've spent a great deal of time writing articles on the various carom billiards disciplines (a labor of love). This article is essentially my summary of that prior foundation. Already a GA and selected for Wikipedia:Version 0.7, I would like some suggestions for further improvement and expansion. Any clarifications, prose issues, etc. are welcome. Please don't provide an automated peer review. Note that I am aware of the recently added, fragmented text at the end of the three cushion billiards section.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<automated peer review removed>

As already stated above: Please don't provide an automated peer review. I did that myself long before posting here. If no one comments, fine, but at least read the request.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Midnightdreary Great job on this article, plenty of good sources (though, really, you can never have enough, right?). Here are some suggestions.

Lede: First, I think the opening picture should be a little bit more illustrative. Rather than a historic illustration, maybe a more recognizable picture of a typical table used for gaming? Maybe even a pseudo-artsy close-up of the balls and part of a cue? It certainly would help me understand the topic of the article more quickly. The lede in general is good but there is one oddly placed sentence... The first 'graph talks about the general set-up of the game, then suddenly ends with info about the history of the game. The second graph, which talks about the origin of the name, seems like the better spot for that. I also wouldn't italicize any of the terms. As I understand it, the lede should be introducing the full article with expansion of all it introduces further in the article. The history of the term "carom," for example, should be repeated in the main body of the article if it's introduced in the lede.

Equipment: I wonder if it's worth a quick bit of prose introducing the equipment before breaking into subsections (maybe this is a good spot for further discussion of the origins of the term "carom."). I don't feel strongly about it, but it's just a suggestion. Also, under "Cloth," that first paragraph seems long enough that there should be another in-line citation midway through or even earlier. Your double citations at the end of the paragraphs could be split to help that. This is, I think, especially important for strong claims about, say, the "most famous maker of billiard cloth." The same is true for the "Billiard cues" subsection; it's definitely long enough to have further in-line citations. Really, this is a suggestion for the entire article. Also, should this "Billiard cues" subsection wikilink to cue stick or are there differences? Under "Heated slate," I don't understand why the quote ends with an ellipsis ("..."); just let the quote end. I also think the whole "Equipment" section could use a quick once-over for wordiness.

History: Just as the "Equipment" section, I weakly might recommend starting with some quick prose before jumping into the subsections. Feel free to ignore that suggestion. But, the whole section still needs more citations. Possibly less reliance on your 1st footnoted source too. Under "straight rail," "although no exact time of origin is known" should probably say "no exact date"; the time isn't entirely relevant. :) The excessive bold words here are also a little distracting... Not sure they need to be bolded here at all (throughout the full section). Some of your italicized, err, vocabulary terms might have definitions under Wiktionary (I didn't check, sorry) that you could link to. I'm also puzzled why "The champion's game" has a main article called "balkline and straight rail." It's not clear that this is the same type of game. Also, did this version die out? It is written in past tense but I wasn't convinced if this version has died out (maybe a quick line like, "this style of play was replaced by" or "evolved into"...). Under the "Balkline" subsection, your list of variants is very thorough, but perhaps excessive. Are some of those variants more notable than the others? Also, in the third 'graph in that subsection, your inline "1)" and "2)" takes away from the flowing prose.

Other I think the images can be sized up a bit, per editor's choice. Also, I feel like a section is missing after the History. Perhaps a "Modern play" section, starting with the final paragraph in the "Artistic billiards" subsection? Once it's in its own section (and I don't mean subsection), it may encourage further expansion of the current trends, popularity, etc.

Well, I hope I was helpful. Best of luck with this article and other work here on Wikipedia! --Midnightdreary 01:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lot to digest. No one had responded for so long I didn't realize anyone had finally responded until today. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]