Talk:World Series of Darts (2006 tournament)

Untitled

The results section is incorrect!!! John Kuczinski lost in the 2nd round to Wayne Mardle and then mardle played Ronnie Baxter.

The result tree is wrong.

Kuczynski v Mardle

Good spot - I've just double checked the result don't know how that sneaked in..... Seedybob2 21:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wsodarts.jpg

Image:Wsodarts.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:World Series of Darts (2006 tournament)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 16:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Prose

Lede

• No short description? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Should we not have the runner-up in the infobox? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The infobox does not currently allow the runner-up to be included MWright96 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• "It was the first and only edition of the competition" - why do we link to a 2007 event in the infobox then? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Because it is what the tournament was renamed to MWright96 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• 16 Americans and 16 from the PDC - are we to assume there are no Americans on the PDC tour, and I think we need to say that the players were on the PDC tour, right now it suggests that they were from the organisation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• made a checkout of 161 in leg seven of his first round loss to qualifier and American number one John Kuczynski, the highest in the tournament. - perhaps reword to say made the highest checkout of the event, a 161 in leg.... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

General

• since North America was possibly a large market. - should probably go a sentence later, as the rest of the sentence has nothing to do with America. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• how were the seeds chosen? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There are no further details MWright96 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• There were 12 places decided by a series of qualifiers in the United States held between 4 February and 19 April, and the remaining 4 spots were decided in a competition which took place at the Mohegan Sun Resort on 19 May - does that not mean that the 16 places were all chosen by qualifying competitions? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Matchroom sport currently run an event with the same name, is this not the same? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • It is not the same tournament as the World Series of Darts MWright96 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• As Hearn ran the PDC, was this event in no way associated with Matchroom Sport? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No MWright96 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Total: $300,000 - maybe a note is worthy here saying this total was if the event was won by a PDC player. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Entrants to each of the 12 qualifiers had to be aged 21 or over and be a citizen of the United States. - was this not also a thing for the remaining 4 qualifiers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Correct MWright96 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Is there no suitable images for this article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• on the double 10 ring - this might need more explaination than just the link. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Lloyd won 7–2 over Isen Veljic - no he didn't. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Jenkins made a maximum score - this isn't exactly in the glossary. Are we talking about a 180? I thought these were more common than this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• All four quarter-finals were played to the best-of-17 legs took place on 21 May - as the best-of-17 legs, and took place on 21 May. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Semi-finals and final - the section is big enough to have sections for both. The bit for the final is as big as the quarters. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• The first two legs were shared before Part led 2–1 and then Kuczynski 4–2, which included a checkout of 161 from Part in leg seve - this should probably mention this was the highest of the tournament. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• The Main Draw should have some prose mentioning that it is the draw for the event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Is there no highest checkouts section? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  • A couple pictures and the above comments, and this will be suitable for promotion. Placing on hold. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
    • @Lee Vilenski: Have made changes were appropriate and have replied to a couple of the points raised above. MWright96 (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Happy to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)