Talk:Cowboy pool

Overtrimmed

Resolved

 – Old material not restored (lack of sources); consensus stable for over 3 years.

Some of the material that was excised from the August 27, 2006 version should be restored. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 11:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone had a look at that material yet? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 14:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Every single statement in this article is researched and cites to a reliable (and authoritative) source. The August 27, 2006 version is one person's first person recalll of some rules that were taught to him by somebody that cites to no sources. As such it was material that has no place in an encyclopedia. I am well aware that many articles do not cite their sources. It's a huge problem, but such material is a placeholder for proper content, and in many cases is worse than no content when the information is wrong. The proof of what a problem it is, is this very article. The August 27, 2006 version is correct in most of its statements but it is wrong in others. It is some regional variant and not this game, or this game but filtered through improper recall. It may be that the statements were reliable as to that regional variants rules (or not, how can we ever know without reliable sources?), but that unsourced material was worse than no article as it represented itself as this game.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reading over my post above, and in conjunction with our punctuation kerfuffle (which I was grinning about when I was writing the edit summary but I don't know if that came across), I'm not sure, but I hope the above doesn't come across as harsh. It's something that goes to the heart of my philosophy about Wikipedia, and I have been known to be a bit emphatic when discussing such matters.---Fuhghettaboutit 16:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries; I recognized that as issue fervor, not anger. Anyway, I wasn't saying anything in particular, like this fact or that phrasing, from the old version was necessarily for keeping; more that it was a longer version with more detail than what the article looked like when I added that comment. Just wanted to make sure it had been looked at (by you, really, since you seem to be "shepherding" this article) before it was forgotten. If you're satisfied that nothing needs to be recovered from that version, so am I.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative names

It was suggested somewhere that two alternative names of cowboy pool are American four-ball billiards [presently redirects to four-ball billiards], or American four-ball for short, and four-ball carom (or four-ball caroms, 4-ball carom, 4-ball caroms). Needs to be sourced before adding these and redirecting them here. I'm skeptical, because I'm pretty sure that {{Shamos 1999}} has separate articles on (not just cross-references between) at least two of these three basic names. I don't have the book handy, though.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

99 points

According to the article, if a player reaches 90 points, he must reach 100 by making only caroms. After that, the player has to make a losing hazard to score the point of 101. But if the player is at 99 points, and caroms on all three object balls which is worth 2 points, what happens? 208.54.38.252 (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nehme1499 (talk · contribs) 16:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• Ideally, we shouldn't have sources in the lead. With the sentence with more standard pocket billiards characteristics, do you mean that cowboy derives from thirty-eight, which itself is a form of pocket billiard game? If so, I would remove the source (Shamos, Michael Ian (1993)) from the lead, since it's already included after the sentence Thirty-eight is the intermediary game from which cowboy is directly derived.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• If applicable, I would add an infobox (similarly to how it's included in Straight pool or Nine-ball).
  • I just feel like there's not really enough info to make it worthwhile. It's an amateur game with so much still undefined. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

History

• The parent game of cowboy pool is English billiards, is itself a hybrid...: I don't understand the double "is". Do you mean The parent game of cowboy pool is English billiards, which is itself a hybrid...?
• For the entries written in italics (such as "the winning game" or "thirty-eight"), are we sure they should be formatted that way? These examples don't seem to be covered by WP:ITALICS (which includes foreign words, scientific terms, major works of art...)
• Although popular enough that its rules remain listed in authoritative rule books alongside just a handful of other games, apart from a small sanctioned tournament held in 1914, cowboy pool is strictly an amateur game: I understand the meaning, but I feel like the sentence structure is a bit clunky. Can it be reworded in a clearer way?
  • I have fixed the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Rules

• The balls have a set opening placement: The one-ball: the second "the" shouldn't be capitalised.
• All Foul shots in result in the player losing all points: (1) should "Foul" be capitalised? (2) is the first "in" correct? Should the sentence be interpreted as "all shots, which are foul, result in the player losing all points", or as "all shots, which are foul, and which go "in", result in [...]"?
• the opposing player comes to the table with cue ball in position except in the case of a scratch: a bit clunky. Shouldn't there be a "the" before "cue ball"? And I'd probably add an en dash (–) before except.
• I would add a comma before and the failure to do so.
• garners no points: I'd replace "garner" with "gives" or "earns", as I don't think the average reader is familiar with the word.
• Generally, there are quite a few technical terms given the nature of this article. I'd that there is a good balance here, as (generally) only what's necessary is explained. I'd still give a brief explanation of what it means to "scratch", since it's important to the conclusion of the game.
  • Done the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• For source 9 (bestbilliards.com), I'd replace the regular dash with an en dash (–).
• I think the Shamos, Michael Ian (1993) source is better formatted as a "Bibliography", omitting the pages, and have {{sfn}} templates with the specific pages as inline sources.
  • I've taken the liberty of taking care of the Shamos, Michael Ian (1993) source. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Other comments

These comments don't come at the expense of me promoting the article, but it would be nice if they were dealt with:

• No images: is it impossible to find an appropriate image for the article? Since the setting seems quite simple, couldn't you take a photo yourself of a pool table with the 1, 3 and 5 balls appropriately placed?
  • I think it'd likely be a mess for me, as this is usually played on an English billiards table, rather than a modern nine-ball table. There are, however, a few images in Shamos' book. I have a copy somewhere I'll pull out and upload. Might take a couple days though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I see. The issue with using images from books is that more often than not they are copyrighted, so we can't host them on commons. Maybe you could try asking a friend? Anyway, take care of this whenever you get the time.
• Have there been derived games/variants of the game?
  • Fraid not. It's a super obscure pool game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• And is there any pop-culture reference to cowboy pool?
  • It's mentioned in a few novels, but nothing worth mentioning. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(I'd expect the answer to the latter two to be no)

• • Following the changes made to the article, I'm happy to promote it to GA. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Assessment

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 non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: