Talk:RTL7 Masters

RTL7 Masters 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: October 22, 2020. (Reviewed version).

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

Darts Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Darts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Darts-related articles 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.DartsWikipedia:WikiProject DartsTemplate:WikiProject DartsDarts articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

This review is

transcluded from Talk:RTL7 Masters/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 23:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Since both of your nominations are in the 1-3 month window of outstanding nominations, might as well review one of them for the GA Drive. As per usual, if you have any questions/comments, feel free to mention them in the review. Also, I'm going to try to organize this review a bit and state which criteria a point has issues with. Therefore, it'd help me determine which of the criteria needs the most or least work with.

Group stages

Group A Y

• Original Research: "against Jelle Klaasen, a former BDO world champion." - Sky Sports does mention Klaasen was a "Lakeside champion" but doesn't clarify that the championship held at Lakeside was the BDO world championship. I think an extra source would be needed to show Klaasen won in 2006.Y
  • Removed MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fine with me if removing it was easier. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Originial Research: "Klaasen failed to finish on a double ring three times" - true, Sky Sports says Klaasen failed to hit the double ring three times, but not finish on the double ring. Source needs to be swapped.Y
  • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewording works as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: Could it be mentioned that Stompé won the game against Klaasen with hitting the double seven ring? PDC mentions this specific ring. Note: see next point.
  • Added MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Original Research? "Stompé won the game 8–3 on his fourth try" - I'm not sure it was his fourth try. He did miss 3 match darts before Klassen hit the 180. Then Stompe hit the double seven with his third dart. So, would that make it sixth try? Or just six darts?Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you swapped it for sixth try. Thanks for changing. I wasn't sure which way would work. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "Stompé led 2–1 on finishes on the double 4 and 20 rings" - PDC references double 20 as tops with the match recap with Scholten, so could 20 be swapped out for tops and wikilinked so it aligns with the PDC source? Some people may not realize tops and double twenty are the same thing.Y
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity: Also, it was 2-0 not 2-1 when Stompé hit the tops.Y
  • Clarified MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see this one was removed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "and won 8–1 with a 161 checkout in leg seven" - sounds a little off as it suggests he won with a 161 checkout in leg seven against Scholten but the match went for ninth legs. Stompé had 180s in both the eighth and ninth leg to win the game, so maybe that could be mentioned instead for chronological order. Otherwise, if you want to mention the 161 checkout in leg 7, it'd have to be before the 8-1 score.Y
  • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Citation layout: Per above, you might need to bundle Sky Sports and PDC for the 8-1 score as only PDC explains how Stompé ended the match against Scholten. Depending on above, you might not need to do this point.Y
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you did bundle it. I wasn't sure how you were going to address the 161 checkout chrnological order for Stompé, so I left this point here just in case. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Grammar: "The first ten legs were shared to enter a five-leg....in the final three legs" - Could this be put into two sentences for readibility? It sounds long winded when describing Klaasen and Scholten's match. Note: see next point
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "in the final three legs for quarter-final entry and knock out Klaasen" -> "in the final three legs to knock out Klaasen for a quarter-final entry" (Scholten would had had to beat Klassen first to get the entry ;) Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra suggestion: Could a wikilink to five-leg shootout/shootout be included? Just in case someone doesn't know what it means.Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately there is no specific wikilink for this instance MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noticed this: "outer" needs to be removed from "finishing on the double seven outer ring" as PDC doesnt specific outer/inner for Stompé's first match.Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Group B Y

• Close paraphrasing/plagiarism: "the 15-time world champion" - needs to be rewording to avoid exact copy of Sky Sports and pass limited wording.Y
  • Changed MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good enough. There's not a lot of ways this can be reworded without using similar words/word order. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Original Research: "was drawn to play Terry Jenkins" - no mention of a draw by PDC. If you're looking for a synonym of played, then that'd work better.Y
  • Changed MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "Taylor led 3–0 from checkouts of 84 and 124" yep, but these checkouts happened in leg 2 and 3. I think either it needs to be clarified those checkouts of Taylor's happened in the last 2 legs of the opening 3 legs, or mention his double 12 hit / 13 dart finish in leg 1 that came before those checkouts.Y
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see you focused on the checkouts. Looks fine as it aligns with Jenkin's checkout. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "Taylor won three of the next four legs to win 8–5" - 8-4 not 8-5.Y
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Original research: "the 2011 world champion Adrian Lewis" - PDC doesn't specify the year Lewis won the world championship.Y
  • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Broad: "gave Lewis legs six and seven before Taylor won entry to the quarter-finals 8–4 on the double 12 ring" - Going from leg 7 to the final score seems like this match is not covered enough. Especially since Taylor won 4 out of the remaining 5 legs (Lewis won leg 9) before the final score. I think a summary of legs 8-12 is needed.Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Just spotted two more grammar issues. One I'm sure, one i'm not.
  • "three legs in a row to go 5–2 in front" -> "three legs in a row to finish in front 5-2".Y (not sure)
    • No that's no correct grammatically but have changed the sentence slightly MWright96 (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your rephrase works for me. I misread it LOL. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to win 8–3 and quarter-final qualification" -> "to win 8–3 and a quarter-final qualification." Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Group C Y

• Optional: "The match was tied 1–1 early on and later went to 5–5" - since you're including ties, Van Barneveld and Van der Voort went 4-4 before tieing again at 5-5. Up to you if you want to include it.Y
  • Changed MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for including it. You didn't have to. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Original Research(?): "Van Barneveld missed three chances to win the game." - this one I'm not 100% sure. PDC says Van Barneveld "missed three darts for victory" in leg 13. So, I'm not sure if "three chances" is correct. While He did miss three darts, I don't know if each dart was a potential game winner, or he needed those three darts to win the game. What's your opinion on this?Y
  • It means Barney had three attempts to win the game but failed to convert them into a match winner. MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. I think that makes sense. He couldn't reach 32 points with those 3 combined darts, meaning he failed three times to hit 32. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "checkouts of 64 and 88 gave Van Barneveld a 5–2 lead" - this only gave Van Barneveld a 4-2 lead. Leg 7 is mentioned after with the three shared legs.Y
  • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Broad: "The next three legs were shared before Van Barneveld made a 113 checkout and a 13-dart finish to win 8–5" - Legs 10+11 that Van Gerwen won are missing in this sentence. It came between the three shared legs (7-9) and the final two legs Van Barneveld won (12+13).Y about broad.  Note: see next point about grammar.
  • Clarity: Also it was a 116 checkout for Van Barneveld in leg 12, not 113.Y
    • Done MWright96 (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Grammar: "the next two legs for a 8–5 win and quarter-final entry" -> "the next two legs for a 8–5 win and a quarter-final entry" Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice spotting that it was 8-4. I missed it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clairty: "by leading 3–1 until the latter won three legs in a row to level at 4–4." - 4-1 not 3-1 as van der Voort won leg 5 before van Gerwen tied it up at leg 8. Unless you mean it was 3-1 when van Gerwen won leg 4, 4-1 when van der Voort won leg 5, then 4-4 when van Gerwen won legs 6-8.Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Group D

• Clarity: "Group B was held on 20 March" - Group D, not B ;) Y
  • Fixed MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "before Wade finished on the double ten ring" - yep, but I think this needs to be clairfied this was to win leg 9.Y
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "Anderson used two misses from Wade on the bullseye ring to win 8–4 on 15 dart throws in leg 12" - Kinda. Anderson won leg 10+11 after Wade missed the bullseye in both legs. He then won leg 12 with 15 darts to win the game. Therefore, the missed bullseye opportunities and 15 dart finish are separate.Y
  • Rewritten MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "with victories in the opening three legs from checkouts of 161 and 165" - Whitlock's checkouts happened in leg 1+2. Therefore, either his performance in leg 3 is needed to keep "the opening three legs" part or it needs to be changed to opening two legs. Note: see next points.
  • Rewritten MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Grammar:"on checkouts of 161 and 165 a finish on the double 13 outer ring" -> "on checkouts of 161 and 165 a finish before on the double 13 outer ring" Note: see grammar point in overall section.
  • Clarified MWright96 (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity/original research: Also, it was on the double 16 ring in leg 3. Though Whitlock did have a 13 dart finish. Up to you which one you want to use. Alternativelly, you need to remove "outer" as PDC isn't specific with inner/outer.Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed on the two points above MWright96 (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actioned MWright96 (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "Anderson then tied the match with checkouts of 104 and 140" - Similarily, the checkouts by Anderson happened in legs 5+6. Anderson's win in leg 4 needs to be mentioned as he tied the match with 3 leg wins, not 2. Otherwise, you could mention he won legs 4 to 6 while having checkouts in those 2 legs.Y
  • Done MWright96 ({talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Broad: "The final group game between Wade and Whitlock included three checkouts....the last player to qualify for the quarter-finals." - this description of Wade & Whitlock's match is very short in comparasion to other matches. If this was expanded to 2 or 3 sentences, it'd help balance it out.Y
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great job with expansion! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity: "included three checkouts over 100" - yep, but it needs to be added it was between the two players.Y
    • Done MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see you removed it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research: "Wade won 8–7 on the double 14 ring" - it wasn't on the double 14. He won with a 14-darter on "double top" according to PDC.Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actioned MWright96 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover points for the second part of the review

Like above so the remaining points don't get missed. These are points I've mentioned above that are left to do:

• Group A: 1) Possible original research as to whether it was the sixth try or six darts that allowed Stompé to defeat Klaasen. 2) "outer" needs to be removed for Stompé's double seven ring finish. 3) Grammar issue about the sentence that describes Scholten defeated Klassen to get the quarterfinal entry.Y
• Group B: Just found 2 more grammar issues (one i'm not sure) in the match between Lewis & Jenkins. Missed them the first time :/ Y
• Group C: Minor grammar point about Van Barneveld defeating Van Gerwen to gain a quarter final entry.Y
• Group D: 1) minor grammr point with Whitlock's match against Anderson 2) Clarification that it was the double 16 ring, not double 13. 3) "Outer" needs to be removed from the double 16 ring per point #2.
  • Almost all done except for #2. It was the double 16 ring for Anderson during the third leg with his match against Whitlcok. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still see this issue at "before a finish on the double 13 ring for Anderson in leg three". --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anderson won leg four on the double 13 ring. Have changed accordingly MWright96 (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter-finals

P1 Y

• Grammar: "Taylor claimed four more legs needing one more for victory but Wade's 83 checkout in leg 10 delayed it." - I think "four more legs needing one more" -> "four more legs and needed one more" for grammar.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)  Note: see below.Y[reply]
    • Similar grammar issue with " Taylor claimed four more legs and needing one more for victory but Wade" --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed wording MWright96 (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutrality: Per the above sentence, "delayed it" doesn't seem netural. Delayed sounds like Taylor was going to win no matter what, but that's not the case as there were enough legs for Wade to win. So a more neutral word than delayed is needed.Y
  • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "to achieve a 108 checkout and win 8–4" - Taylor defeated Wade 8-3 not 8-4.Y
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "Taylor said post-match while he appeared serious" - I know you mean he appeared serious in the match against Wade, but the wording sounds like he appeared serious post-match. A slight reword I think would help.Y
  • Clarified MWright96 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P2 Y

• Grammar: "The first four legs were shared, which included a 170 checkout" - Sounds a bit choppy after introudcuing the quarterfinal betwween Van Barneveld and Scholten. Note: see broad point below.
  • Changed grammar MWright96 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar "from Van Barneveld leg three." -> "from Van Barneveld in leg three."Y
    • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Broad: "The first four legs were shared; Van Barneveld made a 170 checkout in leg three." - only mentioning Van Barneveld in the first four legs seems incomplete. Could Scholten be mentioned as well? Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added more information MWright96 (talk) 06:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Original Research" "Van Barneveld achieved a 156 checkout and finishes on the double 16, 18, 6, 8 and 19 rings" - While Van Barneveld did hit the double 18 ring in leg 6, he did not achieve the 156 checkout, from my reading of "returns after missing double 18 for a 156 finish to hit the same bed". Also, it's redundant as the missed 156 checkout and hit double 18 ring were the same leg. If he did achieve the 156 checkout, the double 18 ring needs to be omitted or merged with the 156 checkout. If he missed the 156 checkout, then it needs to be removed. Thoughts?Y
  • Removed 156 checkout MWright96 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "Van Barneveld observed his performance and said it was important to maintain his finishing against Van Der Voort" - I think his performance up to the semi-finals is needed from his quote. This sentence sounds like there's a gap in it.Y
  • Changed wording MWright96 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the point below change, this works better as it links his performance to the semi-finals as it reads he wanted to keep his finishing the same. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity: Also, I notice that this sentence is the only one that mentions their semi-final competitor. I think for consistency, "against Van Der Voort" needs changing to something like "maintain his finishing in the semi-finals".Y
    • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Grammar: "were won by Lewis and Anderson the next four" -< "were won by Lewis and Anderson won the next four" or "were won by Lewis before Anderson won the next four"Y
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi finals/final

P1

• Clarity: "won the first four legs from checkouts of 89 and 86 and finishes on the double 20 and 8 rings." - true. In chronological order for Van Barneveld it was: 89 checkout, double 20 ring, 86 checkout, double 8 ring. So, you might want to reorder this as the sentence suggests the 86 checkout came before the double 20 ring, but it's the other way around.Y
  • Changed MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity/Grammar: "Van Barneveld took three legs in a row to win 8–2 and enter the final; he failed to complete a nine-dart finish in the ninth leg" - this sentence sounds like two separate things even with the semi colon. Maybe a slight reword/reordering to connect the wins in 8-10 with the failed nine dart finish in leg 9 two could help.Y
  • Removed MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Grammar? "Both players shared the first six legs before Taylor took leg seven on the double 16 ring after Anderson failed to hit the bullseye ring for a 130 checkout." - not sure about this with both "before" and "after". I think two sentences could work better for this. If you disagree, let me know.Y
  • Changed MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarity: "Taylor took a three-leg lead on double 20 and 8 finishes and Anderson took leg 11 on the double 20 ring" - leg 10 is missing here as the three leg lead happened in leg 9. Though Taylor did take leg 10 too, so 3-leg win could be swapped to 4-leg lead if you want. Provided that what happened in leg 10 is included before Anderson's win in leg 11. Note: see below.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarity: "Taylor took a three-leg lead on the double 20 ring in leg eight" -> "Taylor took a two-leg lead on the double 20 ring in leg eight" (as it was 5-3 after the leg win). Prose is right with leg 10. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P2 + 3 Y

• Grammar:"Taylor achieved a maximum score before Van Barneveld won the first leg with an 80 checkout completed in two throws after the latter failed to hit the double 20 ring" - definitely needs to be split into two sentences.Y
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Grammar:"Taylor won the next three legs and Van Barneveld the ninth on the double 17 ring in 14 throws after Taylor failed to complete a 167 checkout on the bullseye ring" - two sentences please.Y
  • Rewritten MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Plagarism:"Taylor said he was delighted to win the event" - "delighted to win the event" needs to be reworded as "delighted" is a key word in Taylor's quote in the Sky Sports article.Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Used another word MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead/infobox Y

• Out of scope: *"the 15-time world champion" - don't think this is really needed in the lead. It's appropriate in the background but i dunno about the lead itself.Y
  • Removed MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Clairty: " improving the record from the 2010 Premier League Darts final." - yep, but it needs to be clarified it was his record.Y
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Grammar: "Taylor won his group with victories over Adrian Lewis and Terry Jenkins, beat James Wade in the quarter-finals and Gary Anderson in the semi-finals" - I think this needs an introductory part like "Before his match with van Barneveld" to connect the final with the rest of the matches. Otherwise the final sounds like it's missing even though it's is mentioned beforehand.Y
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Original Research: " a checkout of 170 in the third leg of his quarter-final match against Roland Scholten, the highest in the tournament." - yes Van Barneveld had a 170 checkout. However, the prose does not mention it was the highest of all checkouts. If this is confirmed in a source, it'd need to be added/cited in the prose to back up the lead. This also effects the infobox.Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed because no source explicitly states this MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. If you end up finding the highest checkout later on, feel free to add it back in the lead and with source in the section. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

• @MWright96: Most of this you've gone through already. The remaining paragraphs mostly issues of clarity and grammar. For parts with one instance, issues are plagraism, original research, and one possible out of scope part. Otherwise, you've added an appropriate image + tweaked the caption to pass that criteria. Other passed criteria are stability, neturality, broad (after some tweaks), reliable soureces, reflist, and MOS. Since you're almost there, i'll put this on hold. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MrLinkinPark333: Have replied to all the above points and have made changes to the article. What else needs addressing? MWright96 (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MWright96: I only see two things: 1) "Simon Whitlock began Group B's second game against Anderson...before Anderson took leg four on the double 11 ring." - needs to be split into 2 sentences for grammar.Y 2) "Taylor took a three-leg lead on the double 20 ring in leg eight" -> "Taylor took a two-leg lead on the double 20 ring in leg eight" as it was 5-3 with his win in leg 8 against Anderson.Y I think after these two points, you'd be set. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MrLinkinPark333: Taken action on both of the above points. MWright96 (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MWright96:: Just noticed something. "Simon Whitlock began Group B's second game" - should be Group D. Why didn't I notice it before XD --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @MrLinkinPark333: Fixed MWright96 (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @MWright96: Alrighty. Now you're good to go. Congrats! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]