Wikipedia

Talk:RTL7 Masters/GA1

< Talk:RTL7 Masters
Latest comment: 3 years ago by MrLinkinPark333 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago131 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

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.

Extended content

Background and format  Y

edit

P1  Y

edit

P2  Y

edit
  • Close paraphrasing/plagiarism - Is there a way to rephrase "rest of the world" to avoid word-for-word copy of RTL7 in both first/last sentences? It sounds like an unique phrasing that a slight reword would be needed to pass limited wording.  Note: see below.
  • Prose - Grammar: Various parts that need to be written in future tense as the tournament hadn't happen yet with the RTL7 source: Y
    • "A total of 12 players were in the competition" -> "A total of 12 players would enter the competition"
    • "This was the first televised darts tournament" -> "this would be the first televised darts tournament"
    • "The first two winners of the quarter-finals played each other" -? "The first two winners of the quarter-finals would play each other
    • "The final on 21 March was contested" -> "The final on 21 March would be contested"
  • Related to Prose above - Otherwise, since you cited Mastercaller in the past tense (which in this case works as its not a future source), you could swap out the RTL7 source for these above instances. Not sure if the fact about how a Dutch/Non-Dutch player would meet in the final is covered by any other source besides RTL7 before the event. Y
  • Original research: "The first two winners of the quarter-finals played each other in the first semi-final with the third and fourth quarter-final victors in the second semi-final" - not according to RTL7. It says Match #1 winner would face Match #3 winner. Similarily, Match #2 winner would face Match #4 winner. See the March 21st section.  Note: see next point.
  • Close paraphrasing - "order of play for the semi-finals was determined" - Looks a bit of close paraphrasing of PDC. Some rewording needed for limited wording. Y

Prize fund  Y

edit

Draw and results / Groups A to D  Y

edit
  • Original Research: The dart averages for the four Groups do not match the Mastercaller source. Most of these are slightly off in the list below except for the one noted. Y
    • Group A - Klassen both matches, Stompé match #2, Scholten both matches.
    • Group B - Taylor both matches, Jenkins match #1, Lewis match #2.
    • Group C - van Barneveld both matches, van der Voort match #2, van Gerwen #2.
    • Group D - Anderson match #1, Wade both matches, Whitlock match #2 should be 94.59 not 94.96.
  • Original Research: With the adjusted dart averages per match, the AVG for all of the twelve players need to be recalculated as they are inaccurate. I'm mainly concerned with Whitlock's average per above. Y
  • For all six points, have used the PDC sources and fixed the Darts Database link to show the averages MWright96 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Knockout rounds  Y

edit
  • Inline citations: Need citations to verify the best of legs, dates, and dart average. Y
  • Original Research: Like above, Mastercaller doesn't confirm all of the dart averages in this source. Luckily, they're all only slightly inaccurate for the following players: Y
    • Quarterfinals: Stompé, van der Voort, van Barneveld, Scholten, Taylor, Wade, Anderson, Lewis
    • Semi-finals: van der Voort, van van Barneveld, Taylor
    • Final: Taylor only

Images / captions  Y

edit

Leftover points for the first part of the review

edit

To make it easier so the points don't get missed. I mentioned them above but recapping them here as well:

  • P1 background: "broadcast" is now the odd one out as Mastercaller isn't clear that RTL7 is a TV Channel. This was after you removed the sentence that stated RTL7 and SBS9 were TV channels. Alternativelly, if a source mentioned RTL7 was allowed to sposnor a darts tournament after obtaining the rights, it'd work better since Mastercaller doesn't state it was allowed to "show" darts. Y
  • P2 background: "rest of the world" needs rephrasing for the last sentence. You addressed the one in the first sentence. Y
  • P2 background: "third quarter-final winners" - "third quarter-final winner" - singular not plural. Y

Group stages

edit

Group A  Y

edit

Group B  Y

edit

Group C  Y

edit

Group D

edit

Leftover points for the second part of the review

edit

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.

Quarter-finals

edit

P1  Y

edit

P2  Y

edit
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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

Semi finals/final

edit

P1

edit
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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.

P2 + 3  Y

edit

Lead/infobox  Y

edit
  • 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
  • Clairty: " improving the record from the 2010 Premier League Darts final." - yep, but it needs to be clarified it was his record. Y
  • 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
  • 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

Overall

edit
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RTL7_Masters/GA1&oldid=984900677"