Talk:2022 Masters (snooker)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rlink2 (talk · contribs) 03:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As usual I do mulitple passes of reading on these articles, to make sure they meet the highest standards, and to catch any possible issues that I might have missed the first time.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Maybe in the lead, use a comma, so instead of The 16 competitors were invited to the tournament based on the world rankings as they stood... it could be The 16 competitors were invited to the tournament based on the world rankings ,as they stood, .....

The phrase Hawkins acknowledged struggling in the final... seems a bit strange, I know the context, but it still "seems" a bit unclear. I think something like Hawkins acknowledged his struggles in the final or Hawkins acknowledged that he was struggling in the final is a better sentence.

And maybe another comma here could be useful: Other players, such as Gary Wilson praised Selby for speaking up about depression within the sport. can instead be Other players, such as Gary Wilson, praised Selby for speaking up about depression within the sport. (comma after "Wilson")
 * Done/ Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Regarding the lead, does the Cazoo sponsorship need to be in there? It's fairly obvious that Cazoo is sponsoring this event right away, and it's only talked about in one sentence. Let me know if I am misunderstanding something, you would know best.

The words century break in the "First Round" section should probably be blue linked, the term may be unobvious to non snooker players. You already did this, good job. Missed the first blue link.
 * The sponsorship has been discussed previously at WT:SNOOKER, and deemed suitable. I didn't link "Century break", because it is previously linked as "century". Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, that looks good to me. Rlink2 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 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:
 * Yes. All references have been archived with web.archive.org, archive.today, and/or ghostarchive.org. I saw you ran IAbot on the article before nominating it, which is good, thank you for doing that. There was one ref that didn't have an archive link, but it was some region locked video. Both web.archive.org and ghostarchive.org were unable to capture this, so whatevs. Maybe you can find a Youtube link of the video in question, which anyone can access. Not a big deal however, the important thing is that the source is there.

It's good I checked this because it brings up a much more important and relevant issue, which is inconsistent citation styles. I noticed that some citations are using the CS1/CS2 cite template, while others are not. The ones that are not using the citation templates have the "webarchive" template, which was designed for references without citation templates. Shouldn't the citation style be consistent per the MOS:FNNR guidelines? Correct me if I am missing something.

And also, if you can, try to find a web link for the Snooker Scene. publications. Not required, but could be useful.
 * Snooker Scene is a print magazine (been going for 50 years or so). I do have an electronical version of this if you need any specific quotes from it. We don't link to YouTube simply for archiving. I have fixed the two sources using webarchive. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * Yes, sources seem reliable.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No. Everything is supported by the references at hand.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * I don't see any indication from my end that the article has copyright violations. You are an admin, so you have access to the copyvio tools, if you want you can use it to double check the article.
 * If I have access to anything more in depth that EarWig, I'm not aware of it. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do have an electronical version of this if you need any specific quotes from it. Ok, good, that's what matters, per WP:SOURCEACCESS
 * We don't link to YouTube simply for archiving. I I agree, my comment regarding videos was regarding WP:V. I am a strong believer that we should have citations that anyone can verify (so no paywall) whenever possible. It's not a problem if theres a paywall (newspapers.com) and trusted users can always check it for others, but for more obscure sources if the original person can't find them it can be harder. I digress.
 * I have fixed the two sources using webarchive. that was more important, thanks. Rlink2 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Yes, of course. There was a game, and it addressed everything, from the beginning/prelude to the game, and the actual game itself, to the aftermath. Most of the article, of course, has been focused on the actual match, which is what I would expect.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * This is fairly detailed, but I assume its the norm for sports articles. More detail is good, usually almost always.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Yes, I think you got everyone's perspective in there. One of the only articles that can contain the word "trump" and almost everyone would agree it is a fair description of what went on ;)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * Article history is stable.
 * 1) 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:
 * Yes.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Yes. Images support the content and enrich the reader's understanding of the material. It's always nice to see the GA's noms images in the article - it shows they care about the subject at hand and also may know more about it than the average writer. It also shows they are willing to put in the work.
 * Sadly I could only get to one session of the event, but it is nice to get back to seeing events again. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, covid runined everything (at least for my favorite sports, like soccer). Its good the world is opening up more .... Rlink2 (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Amazing work as usual. Always a joy to read articles from editors like you. I will follow up with more comments if needed. Keep up the good work Rlink2 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think this looks good. Going to promote. Rlink2 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)