Talk:2004 Masters (snooker)/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 04:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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 will 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 (talkcontribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 - checkY
  • It contains copyright infringements - No copyvio on check checkY
  • 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}}). - checkY
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -checkY

Links

Prose

Lede

Background

  • Thus, for the first time in history, the tournament was unsponsored in 2004. - The "in history" is a bit irrelevant, and a little puffy. I also prefer "went" to "was". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • following the Welsh Open and preceding the third Challenge Tour - Should this be the third challenge tour event? Is there a full tour after this event? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason why they had a new trophy? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Format and wild-card matches

  • Ding compiled breaks of 58 and 108, winning the first three frames in 50 minutes - Is 50 minutes quick for three frames? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First round

quarter-finals

  • lots of "he" - is quite confusing, especially during a final frame. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", in what turned out to be a calmer match" - What does this mean? Calmer than his first round match, in terms of the crowd? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-finals

Final

  • Hunter reduced O'Sullivan's advantage to just two frames by compiling breaks of 102 and 82 in two of the next four frames; he then took the score to 7–6 by executing successful long-range pots - This makes it sound as though Hunter won two out of the next four frames from 7-2 behind, when he actually won 4 frames on the bounce. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a protracted safety exchange early in the deciding frame, and a 36 break put Hunter ahead with three red balls left on the table; he won the match and the tournament - This makes it sound as though Hunter lead the frame with three red balls to play - 51 points remaining. Reword needed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes & References

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 (
    lists
    )
    :
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (
    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:
On hold - Only a few things above worth looking at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lee Vilenski: Thank you again for another review. Hopefully that is everything that needs to be addressed in the article done. MWright96 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]