Talk:2007 Malta Cup

I need help

hi there

i took a template for this article from 2006 football (soccer) world cup - s article my problem with this one is that it has a game "scheduled" for the 3rd place in snooker though, they don't do that. can someone pls tell me how can I modify this template to lose the game for 3rd place?

(i'll keep on searching, maybe i find something)

thanks

[The previous unsigned comment was added by Csabadapp (talk · contribs), 05:09, February 7, 2007]

Shouldn't be hard, but do the tied-for-third finishers actually get no prize money and no recognition? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: While you can rip the Polish version of the article's code to get rid of that box, what is the harm in retaining it? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Need flags

Unless ALL of these people are British, these entries all need {{flag|GBR}}, etc.: GBR

For after the first occurrence (column 2, etc.) use {{flagicon|GBR}}:

Or even more specific than GBR, if they are identified as English, Scottish, Welsh, N.Irish, etc., as well French and so forth for non-British competitors.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template for details.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: See left menu for Polish version. Kind of embarassing that theirs is better than ours! Heh. Aside from the flags, the the fact that it has an intro is rather vital. Most people would perpetually classify this as a stub if it has no introductory text explaining what it is at all (remember the "Random page" feature...) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2007 Malta Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 08:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• It contains copyright infringements - very unlikely  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• 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}}). -  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Links

• No dablinks  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• references look fine. A few unrecognised redirects, but they all look good.  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

• Should probably mention in the lede that the first Malta cup was in 2005, which was renamed from the European Open, first held in 1989. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Added. MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• held from 29 January and 4 February - Held between Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Changed to held from 29 January to 4 February. MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not 100%, but the location I think is Portomaso Business Tower; or at least that article talks about the location more than anywhere else does. Might be worth investigating/redirecting. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Portomaso is the name of a residential area in a town called St. Julians, Malta. MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Not sure I understand about the 200th word ranking tournament part - Is this the WPBSA's 200th ranking tournament? or since 1976? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarified to say it was the 200th WPBSA tournament. MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• frames wikilink for lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Anthony Hamilton compiled the competition's highest break of 136 in the first round of his match against Tom Ford and Stephen Hendry was the first player to compile a 700th career century in his game over Robert Milkins." Seeings these two things are only slightly related (by both being centuries), perhaps, "whilst" instead of and is a better word here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Tournament Summary

• "continuously staged outside" - petty I know, but I prefer "staged continuously", or "staged fully". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• host broadcaster was Eurosport. - Was there any other broadcasters? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No other information for other broadcasters is available. MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• The qualifying rounds were played between players ranked lower than 32 for one of the 16 places in the final stage, - Was it not for players ranked outside of the top 16? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarified. MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• The section on qualifiers should explain how it worked. It was a tournament with byes for higher ranked players. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• "The successful qualifiers included the likes of " - remove "the likes of", always found it to be superfluous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• Why runs? That's a pool term Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove all mentions of the term runs. MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'd like an explanation as to how the wildcard round worked. It seems like two local players were drawn against people who had already qualified. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Added. MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • In the wild card round on 28 January, held between two Maltese players against one of the two successful qualifiers, - I don't think you mean that. Surely it's held between two Maltese players, and two of the sixteen qualifiers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, have now clarified the sentence. MWright96 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• It says Higginson scored his first Malta cup victory, but why is this match more important than the 4 qualifying rounds he won? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarified to say it was the first win in the main stages of the tournament. MWright96 (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Round 1

• The 16 first-round matches on 28 to 31 January were between players ranked 1–16 and those who had made it through the qualifying stage. - Still a bit confused by the wildcard round. Is this considered part of the main tournament, or qualifying? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarified. MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• a game in which Lee's highest breaks were 48 and 47 - I'd just say his highest break was 48. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed the word "47"
• More instances of runs. I've never seen this used in a snooker sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • See my response to the third to last query in the tournament summary section. MWright96 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Round 2

• In the second round between 31 January and 1 February[7] (should there be a comma before the citation? (this also happens in later rounds) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Added the comma here and where appropriate elsewhere. MWright96 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• In his 5–3 win over Ford Dott produced - And again here. Otherwise, I have no idea who Ford Dott is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarified who Dott is. MWright96 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• rest is fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Quarter-finals

• "improved his performance" - kind of goes against MOS. Should probably say he won the final four frames, unless there's a quote to say he played better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Reworded. MWright96 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Carter entered his first semi-final since the 1999 Grand Prix and Hendry revealed a bout of gastroenteritis from consuming a chicken and prawn meal the night before for which he was given injections affected his on-table play - restructure sentence. The important bit is regarding the food poisoning for Hendry, I'd say:

Hendry revealed that a bout of gastroenteritis from consuming a chicken and prawn meal the night before for which he was given injections had affected his on-table play, whilst Carter entered his first semi-final since the 1999 Grand Prix. Or, this could easily be two sentences. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)#

• •  Done MWright96 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Wikilink total clearance. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-finals

• The semi-final matches on 3 February were the best-of-11 frames. - I think "the" here is wrong. Same with the finalBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Changed the wording slightly. MWright96 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Murphy won the opening three frames on breaks of 111, 80 and 59 before Carter took frame four with breaks of 45 and 48 - with breaks Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Final

• Day confessed to referee Terry Camilleri of a foul in nudging the cue ball with the rest as it screwed back. - I know what you are trying to say, but I don't like the wording. Something like "frame 2 saw Day declare his own foul shot to referee Terry Camilleri, after striking the cue ball twice whilst using the rest. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  Done MWright96 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Notes & References

• Source review comes up good! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• I've done an archive of sources for you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. MWright96 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

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:

Comments

• Hi! This one might take me a little time, as I'm not really in the super free time at the moment, but I'll get to it. Looks a great article as usual. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm just going to pass this one now. Looking above, there's very little comments, and nothing to stop it being a GA. I'd still suggest changing the above to improve the article, but I won't keep it open for no reason. Well done! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)