Talk:Pot Black

Pot Black has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 3, 2021. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Snooker Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. BBC Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

   B. It complies with the

   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)[reply
     ]
   • Layout - Complies with
     MOS:LAYOUT
   • Words to watch - Complies with
     MOS:WTW
     .
   • Lists - Good to go. Shearonink (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   B. All

   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)[reply]

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

   • 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)[reply

   ]

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

   • 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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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

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

   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)[reply]

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

   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)[reply]

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

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

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

   A. Images are

   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)[reply]

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

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

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

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)[reply]