Talk:2006 World Cup of Pool/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by MWright96 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Going to review for the GAN October 2020 Backlog Drive. MWright96 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   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):  
  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:  

Infobox

edit

Lead

edit

Format

edit

Prize fund

edit
  • "Prize money for the event featured $250,000 with $60,000 being awarded to the winning team." - A total of $250,000 was made available for the prize pool, with $60,000 being awarded to the winning team.

Teams

edit
  • Consider adding information about which teams were seeded for the tournament in this section

Early rounds (first–second round)

edit

Later rounds (quarter-finals–final)

edit

Tournament bracket

edit
  • I believe Reference 5 can also be used in this section to verify both the format and the seeds

References

edit

Will put the review on hold to allow the nominator to address or query the points raised above. MWright96 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've made the above changes MWright96. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • So, every other article about the first semifinal is now dead (with no archive). Not really sure what I can do. I've added the score to the section (and fixed the ref issues), but without a suitable ref, I can't expand the first semi-final.
  • Ah, IPM to the rescue, should be fixed now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • @Lee Vilenski: Now promoting to GA class. I've added some missing details to some of the references and had to remove one that had a archive url that was linked to something else although the IPM source did verify all the information in the first-semi-final match. MWright96 (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply