Talk:2004 European Open (snooker)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Miyagawa   (talk)  23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll give this article a read through and list any points below. Miyagawa  (talk)  23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Review: Was this the final time it was known as the European Open (did it change back from Malta Cup?). If it was the final time the tournament was called this, then it might be worth mentioning that in the lead. ✅


 * Was the Open held in France from 1989 until 1997/98? It just might be cleared to say something like "The European Open was held from 1989 onwards in Deauville, France, but was suspended between 1997/1998 and 2000/2001." No need to say why it was suspended for those years as it'd be going off topic for this article. :)
 * Corrected to the following: "The European Open was first held in 1989 in Deauville, France, and was suspended for 1997/1998 and 2000/2001.", as the event was held in Deauville only 1989 and didn't take place in the mentioned seasons.


 * "The defending champion was also O'Sullivan..." might be useful to say "The defending European Open champion was also..." just to make it clear to the reader that you're not referring to O'Sullivan as being the defending Welsh Open champion from the previous sentence. ✅


 * Round 1: "After the match Hendry—the world number two and a seven-time world championsaid"; the wikilink to world champion needs to have said moved out of it. ✅


 * Final: I'd switch around the first and second paragraphs to make the section flow better. ✅


 * The Note needs to go into a Notes section. It can be left exactly where it is, just put ==Notes== on the line above it. ✅


 * References: Was concerned initially that the blueyonder Snooker Archive might be an issue, but it's maintained by a sports writer (for example here: ), so it's no issue. Just needed to clarify that here for future reference should someone else want to use that link in a different snooker related GA/FA application. :)

Not going to put the article on hold because I think it's only a few minor points and they'll be sorted quite quickly. Nice article, well done! Let me know once you've addressed those issues, and I'll come back and have another look. Miyagawa  (talk)  00:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Looks all set, happy to promote this one to GA. Miyagawa   (talk)  11:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)