Talk:Horace Lindrum/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 19:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an intriguing article, and on a cursory glance looks very close to being a Good Article. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look simongraham. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• The article covers an sportsperson who is notable, as he meets WP:NSPORT and specifically WP:CUENOT, as a professional winner of the World Snooker Championship.
  • Would be a bit crazy if a world champion wasn't notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I know. And seems to be a member of a family of champions. simongraham (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• The article is of reasonable length, with 1,957 words of readable prose.
• The lead is relatively short at 136 words.
• 74.8% of authorship is by Nigej, with contributions from 51 other users including Lee Vilenski.
• It is currently assessed as a C class article.
• There is no evidence of edit wars.
• The article is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style.
• The text seems clear and neutral.
• Earwig gives a 35.1% chance of copyright violation the obituary written by Roy Case referenced in the article. This seems to be restricted to his name and common phrases like "won the Australian Professional Billiards Championship,". There seems no substantial risk of copyright violation with this or other pages.
• The obituary by Roy Case is self-published. Even if this a respected subject matter expert, we must "exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." Please replace with a verified source.
  • I've replaced with the only other obituary I could find. I couldn't find another source for his place of birth, so I've removed it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I have added a reference for his birth place from Shepherd's Encyclopedia of Australian Sport. simongraham (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• The remaining sources are contemporary reports in newspaper articles, and thus primary sources as defined in WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Spot checks confirm that they talk about the subject.
  • Reporting sources about a sports event are not primary sources. A play-by-play would be, not a summary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    • You may find it helpful to read Identifying and using primary sources which gives more explanation to this. It states, "Traditionally ... newspapers are considered primary sources." and gives some examples of primary and secondary sources; "Reports on events" are primary sources. As per WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." simongraham (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• However, as per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them". Please add some secondary sources.
  • As above, they ARE secondary sources. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Cursory research found, as well as in the Encyclopedia of Australian Sport, Lindrum's entry in the third edition of The Australian Encyclopaedia published in 1979 (vol. 4, p. 24) and The Oxford Companion to Australian Sport (p. 259). I suggest you take a look at these as a starter. There is also a biography published by Primrose Hall titled The Uncrowned King that seems to be written by his daughter, although this may also count as self-published. simongraham (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

      Surely the Encyclopaedias would be WP:TERTIARY sources? I'm happy to add the sources, but I don't think you could call them secondary, per se. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

      True enough. Maybe a better phrase is "reliable non-primary sources". simongraham (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

      I have now added a few of these with thanks to the internet archive. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

      Excellent finds. There is also extensive information in The Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Snooker,[1] including that he was the first to record a century break in India. simongraham (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• If you update the Port Lincoln Times link to this[2], it directs straight to the article.
  • Changed link Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Please remove duplicate links to 1937 World Snooker Championship, Fred Davis, Joe Davis, Melbourne Inman and Thurston's Hall.
  • Duplinks changed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Excellent work. simongraham (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• Suggest adding a comma after "Cup" in "In the Daily Mail Gold Cup Lindrum was again handicapped" and "Championship" in "At the 1946 World Snooker Championship Lindrum won his quarterfinal match".
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
• Suggest combining "Lindrum died on 20 June 1974 at the Delmar Private Hospital, Dee Why, Sydney. The cause of death was bronchial carcinoma." into one sentence.
  • Sure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I have added a link to Dee Why. simongraham (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
• I feel that the sentence "Lindrum was the only active professional not to take part." would be better "Lindrum was the only active professional to only take part in the BACC event." or something similar as the emphasis is the World Snooker Championship rather than the World Match-Play Championship.
  • Yeah, otherwise it's a bit unclear as well, changed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• Did his choice cause any friction in the community?
  • The event itself did, but it basically merged into one event not long afterwards, with both events being a "world championship". I don't think it got any heat from his peers, other than him not being particularly recognised as having won the event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• The image seems appropriate and relevant but is of poor quality. Is there a better one available?
  • [3] is the images we have - so not really. We can't use a non-free image as a free image exists. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
• The image requires a US PD tag.
  • Why would it need a US PD tag when it's an Australian image? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    • The Licensing section states, "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States." Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights for more information. simongraham (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

      Indeed. I've taken a look into this privately, and it seems like any Aus image after January 1952 wouldn't be free in the US, even if it's free in Australia. Copyright is weird. In that case, we have no free images for this bio. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

      I've gone ahead and just removed the image. If it's not in PD here, we can't use it, and I'm not knowledgeable enough on copyright to suggest otherwise. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest adding ALT tag for accessibility.
  • Added. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: This is an interesting article about a rather unknown figure. Please take a look at my comments above, and particularly if you find any reliable secondary sources, and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

No issues, I've addressed all of your points above simongraham Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Excellent work. Please see above. simongraham (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've made some replies above simongraham Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Thank you. I have made a small amend to the citation. simongraham (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

simongraham, no problem, I have added the items from that excerpt. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: This is a really great article and I was just about to complete my review when I noticed the two paragraphs, one starting "The early part of 1936 was taken up with the Daily Mail Gold Cup" and the second "The 1936 Daily Mail Gold Cup was played as a snooker competition". These two seem to overlap in timeframe. Could you please take a look and see what can be done to reconcile them. simongraham (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Simongraham: they were two different events; I've amended one of the wikilinks, which I hope makes this a bit clearer. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: That is ideal. Thank you. Herewith my assessment. simongraham (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Assessment

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   it contains no original research;

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

3. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

5. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass simongraham (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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.