Talk:2004 Masters (snooker)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2004 Masters (snooker)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 04:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, this looks like a wonderful article. Kindly feel free to revert any changes/mistakes I make as I review this article!

---

1. Is it well written?

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

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

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:

   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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

5. Is it stable?

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

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

---

• @Adityavagarwal: Almost three weeks have passed and with no comments on the article. What is the status of the review? MWright96 (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If this one does go on, I don't mind taking over if it goes into the darkness. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

MWright96 I got really busy lately, but give me two to three days and I shall complete it. Thank you so much Lee Vilenski for offering help in completing the review, but I would try doing it in two to three days and if I would not be able to, I would let you know! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to see you back. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski Hey, I would not be able to complete this, so could you do this and Talk:Macdonald seamount/GA1? It would be a great help! Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2004 Masters (snooker)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 04:35, 18 April 2019 (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 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

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

Links

• No Disambig links Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• dispenser has some issues with a few links, but I don't know how you would fix that error. Links work Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Prose

Lede

• First sentence is a bit long for me, I'd prefer something that describes what the article is about quickly such as: "The 2004 Masters was a professional non-ranking snooker event held in February 2004. The 2004 Masters was the 30th staging of The Masters one of the Triple Crown snooker events held between 1 - 8 February 2004 at the Wembley Conference Centre in London, United Kingdom." - Just feels punchier to me Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• "by ten frames to nine (10–9), to claim the third Masters title of his career in four years." - "by ten frames to nine, claiming his third Masters title..." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• " He joined" - "Hunter joined" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Is there any reason why they had a new trophy? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

First round

• "dispatched" is depreciated on MOS:SNOOKER#Neutral tone in biography articles, makes it seem like the victory was easy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• same with "overwhelmed". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• During a match that lasted 1 hour and 50 minutes, McManus' highest break was just 44. - needs a citation. I'd assume the one later in the paragraph covers this, but just to be sure. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Playing with a new cue (having intentionally destroyed his old one at a motorway service station),- Also needs a citation Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Davis complained about the cold air inside the venue, which had dampened the cloth and caused the chalk to stick to the cue ball, making the playing conditions intolerable for both competitor" - Did Davis comment that both men found this to be the case? Surely he could only speak for himself. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Hendry made his 632nd career century break - the actual number of centuries made is a bit irrelevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• " some high-quality potting gave White the lead" - WP:NPOV. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• "he was the last player to progress from the first round to the quarter-finals" - considering the matches are scheduled to take place one after the next, this information isn't pertinent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

quarter-finals

• lots of "he" - is quite confusing, especially during a final frame. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• ", 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-finals

• Good! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Notes & References

• references look good! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:01, 26 May 2019 (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:

On hold - Only a few things above worth looking at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• @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)