Talk:Peter Ebdon/GA1
Latest comment: 10 months ago by LunaEatsTuna in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe 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: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 03:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Will (ideally) review this within a week. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 03:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for agreeing to take a look at this one for me LunaEatsTuna. Ebdon is such a fascinating player for being the butt of many a joke, but also a very successful player that gets forgotten about. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Just a quick heads-up that I've been told offwiki Luna doesn't have internet access for the next few days, but will be able to resume the reviews after. Vaticidalprophet 16:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- No drama. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski @Vaticidalprophet @LunaEatsTuna "the next few days" has stretched into 10 weeks. Luna, are you going to be able to complete this review? RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am bowing my head in shame as I admit I forgot all about the existence of this review!! Yes, I'll finish it early tomorrow morning, around ~one a.m. 7 November in my time zone (UTC). ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 20:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- my mistake also, I've been beyond busy, pretty much dropped all Wiki items. Thanks for continuing to look at this Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- I am bowing my head in shame as I admit I forgot all about the existence of this review!! Yes, I'll finish it early tomorrow morning, around ~one a.m. 7 November in my time zone (UTC). ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 20:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski @Vaticidalprophet @LunaEatsTuna "the next few days" has stretched into 10 weeks. Luna, are you going to be able to complete this review? RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- No drama. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Just a quick heads-up that I've been told offwiki Luna doesn't have internet access for the next few days, but will be able to resume the reviews after. Vaticidalprophet 16:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski: review done with comments below; over to you! Feel free to take your time as there are no time restraints on GAs nor do I mind myself. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 01:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- No drama. I'll get to it as soon as I can :). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Copyvio
editEarwig says good to go.
Files
editAll look the same to the untrained eye are good quality and copyvio-free, with appropriate copyright templates.
Prose
edit- "He dropped out of school to pursue his snooker career, after which his father did not speak to him for six months" and maybe "In the early years of his professional career, Ebdon became known for wearing his hair in a ponytail" as well as his colourblindness (I'll let you decide on the last two) can be moved to § Amateur career. Alternatively, you could also do that thing where people merge education and early residency into an § Early life section separate from personal as well.
- Thing is that these aren't things that only happened to him as an amateur, most of this is about him as a person, so I prefer it there. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds fair. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thing is that these aren't things that only happened to him as an amateur, most of this is about him as a person, so I prefer it there. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Ebdon turned professional in 1991" – meaning (and why '91)?
- I'm not sure I can really explain this in prose. In sports, you are either a professional player, or an amateur. In snooker, if you are a professional player you get entry into professional tournaments (and thus the prize money involved). Nowadays you have to win a place as a professional, but back in 1991, it was more of an opt-in thing. I don't know why he chose that year specifically, but most likely felt he was good enough to perform at that level. Back then there was a lot of professional players (like 250, rather than the 128 now) and there was little barrier to entry. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Drive by comment: before 1991, players applying to be a professional were either accepted or rejected by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (or its predecessor bodies) based, in theory at least, on the strength of their record as an amateur. In some years there were also specific tournaments or series of tournaments where a limited number of players could gain professional status. For 1991, WPBSA membership was opened up so that the only barrier was financial: anyone paying a £500 joining fee and a £100 annual subsciption could join, and over 400, including Ebdon did. The system was changed not long afterwards; by 1997 only the top 64 players in the annual rankings retained professional status. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I can really explain this in prose. In sports, you are either a professional player, or an amateur. In snooker, if you are a professional player you get entry into professional tournaments (and thus the prize money involved). Nowadays you have to win a place as a professional, but back in 1991, it was more of an opt-in thing. I don't know why he chose that year specifically, but most likely felt he was good enough to perform at that level. Back then there was a lot of professional players (like 250, rather than the 128 now) and there was little barrier to entry. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- After the Young Player of the Year sentence, he is used three times successively in separate sentences. They also feel somewhat blocky; is there anyway to possibly merge them together (like the following paragraph) for improved flow?
- Ice made a change to avoid this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Having started the tournament at odds of 33–1" – according to?
- Well, bookies. I'm not sure we have a specific bookmaker according to the source. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I would probably specify this in the article. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 22:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- Well, bookies. I'm not sure we have a specific bookmaker according to the source. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- The Crucible curse sentence needs citing.
- I went ahead and removed it as not all that important. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would wikilink libel.
- The sentence starting "This was the last time Ebdon ..." also needs a citation.
- Sourced Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- "However, the WPBSA did not instigate a match-fixing investigation" – did they say why (and if so, is it perhaps noteworthy?)
- Probably lack of evidence, but they'd never publically say why they didn't do such a thing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, I would remove the quotation and summarise it as "Ebdon stated he was disappointed but proud to have been in the top 16 for X years".
- I've reworded Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- "his 300th century break" – wikilink century break.
- "He began the 2012–13 season by qualifying ..." – recommend using "Ebdon" here as the above paragraph just used he three times successively.
- In the last sentence of § Coaching career (2021–present), I would state "As of [year]" and avoid saying currently.
- I've added the template. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- The final paragraph of § Personal life also uses "he" quite a lot.
Refs
edit- Passes spotcheck.
Formatting:
- An alternative source should be found for ref 42 (or an archived version of said website).
- Removed unreliable source there. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- I do not think Rolf Kalb in ref 91 should be wikilinked.
- I'm not a big fan of linking things other than the actual source in references. Too easy to click the wrong item when trying to find where the info is from. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry LunaEatsTuna I did eventually get through to do this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hehe, no worries! Awesome work – I am satisfied with the changes. Pass. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 20:07, 28 December 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.