Talk:2005 Masters (snooker)

Latest comment: 5 years ago by MWright96 in topic GA Review

start date

edit

13th or 14th. Nigej (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

13th. Davis and Dott won on the 13th. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Jimmy Brown?

edit

Should Jimmy White be reference in this article as Jimmy Brown? I remember the HP Sauce deal at the time as mentioned in the lead, however that section is unsourced. Andygray110 (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



This review is transcluded from Talk:2005 Masters (snooker)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 14:09, 29 October 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 (talkcontribs)

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

edit
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
edit

Prose

edit

Lede

edit

General comments

edit

Notes & References

edit

GA Review

edit
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:  

Comments

edit
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.