Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:2007 Welsh Open (snooker)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2007 Welsh Open (snooker)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

  • I'd usually use the dispenser for this, but it's currently out of service. May do a manual one, and check again if the dispenser is back up before the end of the review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lede

  • "The 2007 Welsh Open was the 2007 edition of the Welsh Open professional snooker tournament and was held from 12 to 18 February 2007 at the Newport Centre in Newport, South East Wales." - Is it worth mentioning that the tournament was first held in 1992, or that it was the 16th version of the event? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I like commenting on their semifinals. I'd either mention who Robertson beat along to winning the event - Notable wins, or nothing at all. Just mentioning who they beat in the semis seems incomplete to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "500-1 outsider" is ok, but perhaps it would be important to note that it was just his third appearance in the main stages of a professional competition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have "maximum break" in the lede. As much as it is wikilinked, a 147 is still jargon Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summary

Quarter-finals onwards
  • "Higginson achieved the highest break in the tournament with the first maximum break of his career, the third in the history of the Welsh Open and the 56th in professional competition in the second frame of his 5–1 victory over Carter" - Reword. Higginson scored a maximum break in the second frame of his 5-1 victory over Ali Carter. The maximum was Higginson's first, the third in the history of the Welsh Open, and the 56th professional maximum in competition. - Or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carter prevented a whitewash with a break of 54 in frame five and Higginson won the match with a break of 104 - Edit for flow. Carter prevented the whitewash... however, Higginson... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • which O'Sullivan nullified with breaks - I hate this terminology. Winning two frames doesn't nullify or negate the first two. O'Sullivan tied with is much better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • contact with the yellow ball and the latter won frame six on a red ball. - What does that even mean? Winning on the black means that one player was only 7 or less points ahead; winning on a red seems a little irrelevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say "Both semi-final matches held on 17 February 2007 were increased to beat of 11 frame matches." This shows enphasis on it being more than prior rounds. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " prevented Davis from challenging for his first ranking tournament title" - strictly speaking, simply entering the event is challenging for the title. Say his first final Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Davis began by winning" - Davis won the opening frame, with Robertson responding Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote by Neil is quite long. Probably need to summarize. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for a while on the term "defeat of" in "with his defeat of Maguire". I thought this meant Maguire defeated him? I couldn't find much on the subject, [7] didn't help. However, "defeat over" negates this completely. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The best-of-17 frames final was played against Robertson and Higginson on 18 February" I don't think this is quite what you meant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "second triumph in a world ranking tournament" - Are there other types of ranking events? Just remove the word world. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like a re-structure of the final. I'd want to see information of the final (scores and such), and a later paragraph on what this meant for Robertson and the press. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & References

GA Review

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:
General comments
  • As I have only three edits on the page (One of which was a title change, and another editing the wikidata.) I don't feel I have enough COI to not review this article. Let me know if there's any issues with the above review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm gonna place this one on hold. Two of my biggest issues is that the names are all last names (and that can get quite confusing), and some of the prose needs tightening. Some of my issues/suggestions are above. It shouldn't be too difficult to improve however. Let me know if you would like me to explain anything I've said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]