Talk:2021 Championship League (ranking)/GA1

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Gonzo fan2007 in topic GA Review

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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Gonzo fan2007 (talk · contribs) 03:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


I'll review this one. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

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 (references):  
    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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

Overall:
Pass/Fail:  

  ·   ·   ·  


Comments

edit
  • In the prose parts of the article, you lower case groups, i.e. group E and group 9. Yet the sources appear to capitalize "group" and you capitalize group in the tables. Be consistent across the article.
  • In the summary section, you have group eight but in the next section group 9, "eight" should be "8"
  • World number 115 won group 24,, is the reader supposed to know who this is? (sorry, I don't know snooker very well)
  • According to the source, Anthony Hamilton scored 5 points in Group 1 during Stage 1 (you have 4)
  • Where did you get the highest break data for inclusion in all the tables? The sources provided (at least to my eye) don't provide this.
  • Your sources for Stage 2 and Stage 3 are for the wrong year. Also, you have no source for the final. It looks like you already have the right sources in the article (Ref 8, 13, 18). Please fix this.

References

edit
  • Refs 1, 26, 31 and 33 seem to be missing a lot of info. Why is this?
  • Refs 27-30 seems to be missing info, like the website field and the access-date field. That said, a lot of web sources are missing the access-date fields.
  • Are sources 3 and 4 the exact same? If so, use the ref name function to join them together.
  • You have a number of duplicative references. Please use the "ref name" function in the reference tag to combine these.
  • Spot checks: TBD (gonna hold off until you address the items above). Will be easier for me to spot check at that point.

Lee Vilenski, overall good article, but definitely needs some work in the reference department. Let me know when you have addressed the items above, especially the references, and I will then complete the spot check. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. Passing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

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.