Talk:Shaun Murphy/GA1

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

Also Shaun does speak favourably of Ronnie's prowess in the sport despite his criticism of his attitude, worth noting he has said Ronnie is near unbeatable or unbeatable when he's on form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.82.174 (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC) More recently leading up to the final of the UK championship of 2017 Shaun did apologise for his criticism of Ronnie over the years, seeing what Ronnie has to deal with he said he hopes he can be a nicer and better person from now on and he has even lauded Ronnie as the best player in the world during his victory speech of the Champion of Champions. This article paints Shaun's critique negatively and also it's outdated by over 2seasons, not good for one of the most active players on the tour who also draws some attention especially with his 'rivalries', would make a fuller and more enjoyable article if it was updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1CFA:8100:3541:1F90:1512:6E5B (talk) 09:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead


 * This could be expanded to include his playing style and a a bit of the controversy about Maguire and maybe details about the split with his wife.
 * Do you think it is wise to have the century count in the lede? It is supposed to summarise his career and should only need to be updated occasionally, but having the century count there requires it to be update every time he makes a century more or less.  Unless your Hendry who holds the record I don't think it's such a notable stat to be honest. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure. But we can list down to the nearest 10 or 25 or so to avoid having to update so often. Number of centuries is often used as an indicator of how good their breakbuilding is. What about prize money? Christopher Connor (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think centuries is worth including, possibly updating every 10 as you say, as an indicator of quality. Prize money... Meh. Nice idea, but not really a comparison with a few years ago, given the huge drop in sponsorship.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Playing career
 * " UK£5,000": The link and "UK" part are unnecessary: £5,000 is fine.
 * Removed. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the BBC interview important enough to include?
 * I think it's worth including as it gives info about his early career and what his ambitions were at the age of 13. Also ties in with his sponsorship deal, and that he was homeschooled at that age due to bullying (at least partly due to his snooker). Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I just don't think the text needs to state "in a BBC interview". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Challenge Tour Event 3 and 4": As these presumably will not link, and sound a little odd, what about "the third and fourth events on the Challenge Tour"
 * Done. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When giving frame scores for the first time, maybe write it out as "won by nine frames to seven (9–7)".
 * Done. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For B&H Championship in 2000, it would be better to give the semi final result first. And is that tournament the qualifier for the Masters? If so, who is selected to play in it? Not quite clear here.
 * Made semi final first. The B&H masters qualifier has people ranked 17-48 in it I think, like most of the qualifying parts of tournaments. I'm not sure how much of this should be explained in general snooker player articles and how much should be relegated to other pages. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no selection for the participants. The players who wanted to participate entered it by subscription. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  15:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That could go in. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "his first run past the last 16 of a ranking event": Sounds a little clumsy.
 * Changed. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ref for ranking of 48 in 2004/5 and for Pettiman loss?
 * Pettman done. There's plenty of general refs for his ranking in 2004/5. There's this website, widely used in articles, but that may not be considered a reliable source. If not RS, is it better to put a ref from the 2005 world championship saying his rank was 48? This makes it evident he was ranked 48 for the season. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that website. It looks OK, but how reputable are the authors? Are they used by others and respected as experts? Hard to say. Maybe the latter option may be better unless you can get someone to give you an opinion on snooker.org. I'd probably let it go as it is mainly stats based, but as I say, maybe another opinion... --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Snooker.org is very accurate, I've never noticed any mistakes. It is run by Hermund Ardalan who has always been very diligant.  It's the same with the Chris Turner's Snooker Archive too.  They've collected information over years that would be impossible to track down anywhere else.  They are technically fansites, but for anyone who follows the game both of these men would qualify as experts. To my knowledge there has never been a complaint about either of these sources by any of the regular editors on the Snooker Project. Obviously if they were to be challenged that would have to be dealt with, but they are widely used across the snooker articles and it would be a shame to lose the information they provide, especially when we know it's highly accurate. Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there any mileage in mentioning century breaks, for example his first century, or other notable ones?
 * I think it's worth mentioning earlier career achievements like his first century as it's info about his early development. I also changed the bit in 2005 WC to say his 11 were the most during the tournament. I think most centuries is notable enough to include in that section. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Any joy with adding first century? --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed first century. Don't see why it should go but nevermind. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow you here. Why was it removed? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Readded. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The two qualifying wins in 2005 seem out of place being mentioned after the result. They should either be left out (his qualification is implicit) moved to before the tournament.
 * Moved earlier. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How low did the rankings used to go? I imagine there wasn't always a number 48, so there may not be a direct comparison with the past for players such as Griffiths. But I could be wrong. Maybe alter to unseeded? And this all needs a reference, as does his marriage.
 * Removed the bit about Griffiths since things seem rather unclear. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 2005/6 section has very few refs for seedings or results. The same for 2006/7 and 2007/8.
 * Will find more. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

*How important is the Pot Black stuff? It seems to be given undue prominence.
 * Removed the century record. I think it's worth including any wins and finals, and they have their own articles. Also gives variety to article rather than the same tournaments being mentioned again and again. Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But how prestigious is Pot Black? I don't remember much fuss during its revival, but I may have missed something.
 * Admittedly not very prestigious. However, I think at least the 2005 victory should be mentioned, and probably also the 2007 runner up. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken he was runner-up in the 2005 Pot Black too. I think Matthew Stevens won it that year. Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are indeed correct. That's what it says in the article as well. I seem to be a bit deluded. Anyway, it appears in the new table as runner-up. Would have to include or remove both. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On balance I think both finals should be included; they don't need more than a sentence, but they were "main tour" tournaments and he reached the finals. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The performances and wins sections would be better at the end of the article.
 * Moved down. Do you think the order of the three sections is okay? Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I might put the rivalry one first, then playing style, then personal life. Maybe rename the rivalry one as just "Rivalry" in case he starts up with anyone else. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The main problem so far is with the refs. I have still got a bit more to read, but the rest seems OK, if a little dry. However, the article would not pass until the refs are sorted. I imagine they will not be too hard to find, though. I will finish the rest of the review shortly. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I will look for more refs now and tidy the article up. There's also the issue of overlinking players, now most instances of players are linked. It can be hard to edit the article if you have to make sure the first instance is link but no more. I also didn't really expect a reviewer to come along so soon given the backlog :). Christopher Connor (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also some minor issues with the world snooker profile changing every year so that the article no longer matches the source. Will sort out. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, most of the backlog doesn't appeal to me anyway. It's nice to see some snooker stuff out there. I'll leave the review for a day or two to let you catch up, then I'll have another look and finish the review off. If you get it all done before that, give me a shout. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

More Comments
 * Still problems with referencing. All results and all rankings need a reference. It will need these to pass. Snooker.org fine for the moment, although it may be worth checking out before the article goes any further after GA.
 * Rivalry: I've tried to make it a little less wordy, but I wonder if it is worth mentioning the results between them unless there was an "incident".
 * Playing style: cn tag in this section. Also, this is too brief. Any comments on his speed, tactical play, how he reacts under pressure? May be a little tricky, but there may be a player profile around somewhere. Also, I might move the coaching stuff into personal life or early career.
 * Personal life: Refs need to go in numerical order. The first paragraph reads like a list of trivia and needs to flow a little better.
 * Thinking out loud here, but it could be argued that some of the detail in the rivalry section and about his marriage is a little "tabloid". Can this be justified in an encyclopedia? Or is it fine as it is? (I might prefer it toning down a touch but leaving in, but I'm anticipating here!)

I'll put this on hold now, for a week initially, but let me know if you need longer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Added more refs, will get round to the other laters. Surprised though, that a GA would need this many refs (almost a 100). I've removed the rivalry results, since they might be undue and mostly appear in Career anyway. Where is the guideline that says refs need to be in order? That seems counterintuitive to me, since certain refs may be more relevant so should appear first. I think the kiss and tell story is notable enough to include and fits well in the personal life section. Was also referenced in the Independent in the context of the world final. The first paragraph is a little staccato. Is appearing on A Question of Sport notable enough to mention? Will try to find more info for playing style. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Several points here:
 * References are required for all articles, not just GA, but see here. BLPs are particularly important to have good refs.
 * Other GAN points are covered here, including refs being in numerical order.
 * I'll accept your view of Pot Black (although I'm personally unconvinced) but not on QoS. Just because something can be referenced in the media does not make it notable and also refer to GA criteria 3b.
 * Kiss and tell is OK, it was more the manner it was written in. It was borderline tabloid, but I'm OK if it stays as it is.
 * Not too sure why you are telling me about the first paragraph! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, have to understand that the sport is not too high profile or well-covered and finding information can be difficult. The official governing body doesn't help much, so it's left to individuals. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it's possible. You have already extensively used the BBC website which is comprehensive, and most newspapers have reasonable coverage around the time of ranking tournaments. However, I accept that the coverage is not as good as, for example, football. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A few points I missed last time: --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to add persondata to the end of the article.
 * Times links in the refs may be a bit dodgy (probably since it became a pay site. If there is a problem, I can probably get the new ref for you); also BBC pages are coming up as redirects, but they always do, so these can probably be ignored.
 * 3 2 DAB links to Michael Holt, Mike Dunn, Neil Robertson. and Joe Johnson
 * And if I could make one tiny suggestion while you are adding refs, it is easier on the eye and on the reader if some refs are grouped at the end of a sentence rather than spread throughout it. It is fine to have 2, 3 or even 4 refs at the end of a sentence or paragraph if all the info is linked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer refs at the end of a sentence too, but I don't think shifting refs to the end of the paragraph is a good idea. We can cover a whole season in a paragraph so it's not really a single unit of information.  As for the unsourced results, we have separate result pages for most of the tournaments during Murphy's professional career so it shouldn't be too difficult tracking them down - the BBC certainly records all ranking event results.  As for The Timesonline refs, it may be the case that they now hit a paywall but does that prohibit using them as refs?  If they weren't challenged when they added to the article, the information is still verifiable through them and many public libraries will no doubt purchase a Timesonline subscription. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There's currently no problem with the refs being inaccessible as all of them are available without pay and online. Not sure if they're going to be made unavailable in future? Points: The refs in the middle of the sentence reference only that point (generally the match) so moving it to the end may confuse with regards which is sourcing what. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have switched the refs to order. May check this out further elsewhere.
 * Removed Question of Sport.
 * Removed a sentence from the tabloid story.
 * What is person data?
 * There's also the problem about which results to include. Right now, some results from tournaments in the latter stages are omitted while relatively minor ones (first-round results) included. I suppose that isn't a huge issue right now since all the main points are dealt with. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not every single detail we document has to be notable - that would make it impossible to create complete biographies for people. It is his professional career that is noteworthy, and we have to get the balance right between noteworthy achievements and less notable happenings. We tend to cover all tournaments of the season now (which is why I'm for including Pot Black) but we have to get the balance right.  We should include which stage he reached in all of the main tour events (from the TV stages onwards - I don't see much point in including qualifier results) but perhaps it is not necessary to include the result unless it was a final.  We should include the results of all his world championship matches though since it is snooker's one true international event.  If there are any notable matches (such as the match where he made four consecutive centuries) those should be included too, and career milestones such as his first semi-final and things like that. As for the refs, I agree they must go with a specific result if that is what is being sourced. In the case of factual information, biographical claims, etc that can be moved to the end of the sentence. Betty Logan (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Done
I think I have completed all the changes and it should meet the GA criteria now. I know the writing is dull and repetitive but that's hard to help in an article like this. I've tried to add some sentences that aren't "In so-and-so tournament, he was defeated 4-5 by so-and-so". Christopher Connor (talk) 05:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, this seems to be getting more complicated than it should. I had hoped it would have passed by now but I cannot pass an article where the nominator admits that the prose is not up to scratch! I'm performing a final copy-edit, but I seem to be struggling when it comes to the lists of results.


 * For example, why is the 2003 Scottish Open listed but nothing else between 2001 and 2003, and why is the 2002 WSC mentioned out of this chronological sequence. Every result of his career does not need to be mentioned. If there is a reason for these results being mentioned, for example the only tournaments he qualified for, say so. Otherwise it looks a little odd. Furthermore, the article needs to be more consistent: some tournaments list every round, other only the round he went out in. Why the difference?
 * Why is magician italicised? Should it not be in quotation marks? I've changed it for now.
 * There is a lot of overlinking: only the first instance should be linked and then not everything needs linking.
 * I'm a long way from being an expert on tables, but I can't quite see why some of the columns are sortable on the tables: e.g. opponent or frame score.

I've copy-edited up to the end of 2005/6, but to be honest, I don't feel that I should have to be putting so much work into this article. It needs copy-editing properly as there are numerous slips in the writing and the prose does not flow. I appreciate that a GA is not up to the same standards as a FA, but in your own words, it is "dull and repetitive". It may need a re-think to avoid this. However, it is not far from GA. The refs are OK now. There are 3 options now. 1) I can give you longer to have another look, or to get someone else to copy edit. 2) If you are fed up with this, I can fail and you can re-nominate for someone else to review (although there are reviewers even fussier than me, believe it or not), or work on the article away from GAN. 3) I could request a second opinion.

There are 2 remaining problems I have: the prose, and the amount of detail about his tournaments (I've cut some bits to show what I mean) And of course, feel free to revert any changes I have made if you are not happy. Let me know what you want to do, I am happy whichever way, and I would like to see this get to GA. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I'll continue putting work into the article for now. I have merged the world championship results into the above text (they were in their own paragraph when I started editing the article) and created a new subsection "early ranking results" that covers 2002 to 2005 WC. The tournaments listed here I think are all the ranking events he reached (not many in this period). Have put nicknames in quotes. I've trimmed down some of the early round results that are of no interest, just saying which staged he reached. Removed some tournament too that aren't important. Have also removed a lot of the overlinking. Also, about the players, am I only supposed to refer to the full name the first time and then surname after? Christopher Connor (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the table is either all sortable or all non-sortable. Since some columns are useful with sort function, I think the table is okay as it is. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fine. As I say, I'm no expert on tables. For the players, yes full name first time then just surname after. I'll have another look in a day or two as I see that you and another editor are doing more work at the moment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can make columns unsortable if you want by just tagging the appropriate column as  class="unsortable" . As an example below I've omitted the sorting function from the "score" column: Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Someone reverted the "as of September 2010" for his maximum break. If it simply says "to date", no-one knows how up-to-date this is. And it doesn't need changing every month, just every so often. This is fairly standard, I believe. I have put it back and would prefer it leaving in, but if the nominator prefers "to date", it will not affect GA at all. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to pass now, well done for all the work that you have put into the article. Much improved and everything has been addressed. If you were thinking of taking it to FAC in future, I would make 4 suggestions. 1) Tidy up the prose some more. 2) More on playing style as this is always big at sports FACs. 3) Combine some references so that there aren't so many. 4) To liven up the prose, maybe include details or incidents from his matches, for example any description of tight finishes or framewinning breaks. I'd only do this for a few matches: maybe important matches, tight games or big losses. For example, some description of the closing stages of the 2005 WSC. But don't overdo it! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review and for passing the article. I'll work on the article some more but don't intend to take it to FAC (at least not until he's nearing the end of his career). As for the maximum, I don't think anyone reverted it. I think it was you who rewrote it to say "to date" from "first and so far only"? I would prefer as of Sep 10 as that seems more specific. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of either terminology to be honest. You could say he's won four ranking events as of September 2010, he's won won world title as of 2010 etc.  By doing that it means you have to alter the time-stamping effectively on a monthly basis, but it's redundant really because the season outlines show how up to date the article is.  If he makes a maximum this season it will be documented in the season outline, so it's just redundant to include "to date" and "as of September 2010" etc. I would scrap the "and only" because the infobox makes it clear there haven't been any others since. Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How about "He made his only maximum at ..."? Christopher Connor (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, since we wouldn't have to alter the statement unless he makes another. Betty Logan (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. It is way better and with this we can omit monthly updates. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  11:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. (Strange, not as if he's going to be making maximums every few weeks.) Christopher Connor (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)