Talk:2023 World Snooker Championship/GA1

Latest comment: 3 months ago by HurricaneHiggins in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

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

Reviewer: Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk · contribs) 17:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look at this shortly. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Prelim edit

Lede and infobox edit

  • "Neil Robertson became the first player" no need to repeat his forename
    • The only issue is that there is another player in the draw with the surname Robertson (see Jimmy Robertson). I know we haven't defined him, but in this case, this avoids the potential confusion. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • The dates for the non-UK champions are not mentioned in main text

Background edit

Summary edit

  • Is there an explanation anywhere of how particular amateurs were selected?
  • An explanation as to what a tour card is would be useful - it is mentioned in the latter stages of qualification but I feel this could be moved up
  • "other half-centuries" is "other" needed here?
    • It is, because sometimes people calculate centuries as also being half-centuries. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • "O'Sullivan began his title defence by winning" the last O'Sullivan mentioned was Sean, so suggest adding Ronnie's forename here
  • "deciding frames to Marco Fu" opposite here - probably don't need his forename as he's the only Fu mentioned
  • "After his first session with Robertson" while I realise the other Robertson has been knocked out by this point, a forename here for clarification might be useful this once
  • "and there were two re-racks"?

Rest of article edit

  • Considering qualifying comes before the main draw I would have expected the qualifying draw section to do similarly?
    • Order of importance. This has been discussed a lot, consensus is for it to be after the draw. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • There is no explanation of what the WPBSA is - I obviously could guess but it would be easier if the acronym is introduced
  • Notes B and C should really have citations

References edit

  • References look good; text in images captions is all also present in main text.
  • All appear to be reliable sources apart from the Metro, but I don't think either uses of that source are controversial.

@Lee Vilenski and HurricaneHiggins: Hi, that's all I've got for now. A well put-together article. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

All done :) Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Passing as satisfying the GA criteria. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply