Talk:Pot Black

GA

Armbrust - do you have any worries if I was to clean this article a bit and take it through GA? I think it's pretty close and just needs a little bit of work. What do you think?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No. It would be great if the article would become GA. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I plan on reviewing this article for possible GA status, will try to complete it in a timely manner. Shearonink (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• No Quick fail issues. Will start getting at the rest of the review shortly. Shearonink (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Hahahaha, LOVE the pink/green black&white TV quote. Made me laugh - Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   This overall parameter always takes me a while to work through...

   • Lead - MOS:LEAD guidelines have been followed.Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
   • Layout - Complies with MOS:LAYOUT
   • Words to watch - Complies with MOS:WTW.
   • Lists - Good to go. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All the cites' styles are "according to Hoyle" - Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   • Why should Wikipedia accept "Chris Turner's Snooker Archive" as a reliable source? Shearonink (talk)

   Chris Turner is a snooker historian who did work for both the BBC and Eurosport. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

   Ok. Accepted. Shearonink (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   • Why is "Global Snooker Centre" a reliable source?

   I'll try to find the topic we had open at WP:SNOOKER, but we generally consider it to be reliable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

   Accepted. Shearonink (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   • Same with "UKGameShows.com". Also, this website is showing up on my browser as Not Secure.

   The state of the website isn't fantastic, but it has an editorial team, which suggests reliability to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

   I am still concerned that the site is showing up as Not Secure. Shearonink (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   I don't get the same error on either mobile or desktop? If you want, we can simply list the archive-url and put the regular URL as unsuitable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   Yes, please, that would be fine. I just get security notices like that on the browser I use, not that I think there is a huge problem with the site but I think an archive-url would be best. Keep any possible WP-readers "safe" :). I'll wait for that change, I think that's the last on-hold thingy, will give the article a last read-through to make sure but I think it's looking like a GA. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   I have done this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   • Is the Bulgarian website/source necessary? (And is it reliable...) Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

   That's the Bulgarian Snooker Federation. Most likely reliable, but whether or not it needs to be there is another question. Seems fine to help show the winners list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

   Accepted. Shearonink (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   See previous - the NOR looks fine but for GA purposes I think the reliability of some of the sources needs to be delineated. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran Earwig's copyvio tool - no issues found. Shearonink (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Yes, ummmm - it's about this particular snooker competition and holds to that theme. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

   Related to preceding parameter. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Yes, dispassionate in tone, doesn't favor any particular participant or have bias against participants, etc. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Very stable, no edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No images, not a worry. Shearonink (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   As above. Shearonink (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold pending continuing discussion about the status of UKGameShows.com. Shearonink (talk) 07:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

   Congrats, it's a GA! Shearonink (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Cameras in pockets

Was Pot Black the first televised snooker programme to employ cameras in the pockets? And if, so when was this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Origins

This BBC source says that it was Bryan Cowgill who suggested snooker to show off colour TV, at a meeting convened by David Attenborough. According to Clive Everton, it was the BBC producer Philip Lewis who came up with the title Pot Black. (Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards, p.38) Ted Lowe was involved in devising the format. ("Philip Lewis, one of the Grandstand producers, rang Lowe to ask if he had any ideas. From this, Pot Black was born, with Lowe providing the players", "Ted Lowe, who devised the programme"). Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)