Talk:2001 PDC World Darts Championship

Latest comment: 4 years ago by MrLinkinPark333 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:2001 PDC World Darts Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 17:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hello! It's been awhile since I've reviewed a darts article. Thought I'd review this one to help reduce the sports backlog. If you have any comments/questions, you can leave them here in the review per usual. Depending on how long this takes, I might review some sections per day and not all at once. We'll see.

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed
Extended content

Tournament summary

edit

P1  Y

edit

P2  Y

edit
  • "with the top 8 seeded according to their final position in the PDC rankings" - of the top 8, only Askew is mentioned by his world ranking. Therefore, I think an extra source is needed to show the top 8 were listed based on their rankings. If you're referring to their points, is that the same thing as ranking? Y
  • "and the tournament's defending champion Phil Taylor was seeded fourth." - none of the sources shows Taylor won the tournament in 2000. Rest of the sentence is fine. Y
  • "three were required by a tomlin order not to partake in any PDC-sanctioned darts competitions for one year after they had switched from the BDO. They were Richie Burnett, Roland Scholten and Denis Ovens. - Planetdarts dosen't specify that these three competitors were originally from the BDO, just that they couldnt compete during the one-year Tomlin order. Y
  • "Dave Askew, Les Fitton and Gary Spedding all qualified as they were prior PDC members" - similarlly, Planet Darts doesn't mention they were prior PDC members.  Note: see other points section.
  • "The world championship featured one woman player, Gayl King, the first female to enter the tournament after the PDC invited her as part of its attempt to modernise darts" - sounds a bit redundant/off with "one woman player, Gayl King, the first female". I think this needs a bit of grammatically tweaking.  Note: see other points section
  • Only the Match Results page on Mastercaller shows the sets, not the overview source. Y
  • "Sponsored by the lager company Skol," - Mastercaller doesn't specify what type of company Skol is. Up to you if you want to swap it for a source that does mention it in terms of the torunament sponsor, or you could drop lager company. Y
  • Only the overview of the 2001 tournament on Mastercaller shows the prize amount, not the 2001 results page. Y

Other points  Y

edit
  • "Dave Askew, Les Fitton and Gary Spedding were the other three qualifiers" - I think this should be clarified that they were the other three men that debuted as "other three qualifiers" suggests that only 6 people qualified when that's not the case. Y
  • "the first woman in Gayl King to play in a world championship" -> "the first woman, Gayl King, to play in a world championship" Y

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

P3  Y

edit
  • "the second favourite to claim the world championship was Shayne Burgess" - correct, but this is mentioned in the BBC Sports citation (cloud nine), not The Times one. Y

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Prize fund  Y

edit

Draw  Y

edit
  • I notice that the dart average is different between Mastercaller / Darts Database (i.e. 81.85 / 81.84 for Spedding). If you did use Mastercaller for the averages, some averages need to be corrected to:
    • First round: Denis Ovens 91.31, Nigel Justice 78.43, Roland Scholten 93.09, Dan Lauby 80.93
    • Second round: Alan Warriner 84.61
    • Quarter-finals: Jamie Harvey 80.48, Dave Aksew 96.86, Rod Harrington 93.51,
  • Keith Deller is not the #5 seed in the second round.

Pictures

edit

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Section break

edit

All except John Part's licensing issue is done. Time to review Round 1 onwards --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Extended content

Round 1

edit

Paragraphs 1 and 2  Y

edit

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Paragraph 3  Y

edit

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Paragraph 4  Y

edit

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Round 2

edit

Paragraph 1  Y

edit
  • "Askew became the first player to go through to the quarter-finals with a 3–2 win over Roy," - BBC doesn't mention Askew became the first quarter-finalist. Y
  • "a match that saw both players compile thirteen maximum scores." - Askew and Roy's match had a total of 13 maximums together, not each player per "13 maximums between them" (double checked the video source to be sure)  Y
  • "Warriner secured the opening two sets with scores of 3–2" - Planet Darts does mention 3-2 in the text, but if you see the scoring sequence it says 3-2 3-0. I've tried to find video footage of this match but no luck unfortunately. The scoring sequence could be a typo, but I'm not 100% sure. Y
  • "to require the match to end after five sets." I think this needs to be reworded to clarify the tie in sets required a fifth set, not Lim's scores decided a fifth set. Y
  • "Lim missed eight opportunities to win the match" - from both sources, I see at least two opportunities, not eight. Not sure where the eight came from. Y
  • "from set victories of 3–2 (x2) and 3–0" - I think x2 should be written as twice to avoid the brackets while making sure it's grammarically correct for Scholten's whitewash. Y

Paragraph 2  Y

edit
  • "and took the match to a final set decider" - seems a bit close to BBC (Ice Man melts challenge) for Deller's match as they say "deciding set" so I suggest a small tweak. Y
  • "before he averaged 32.32 point per dart to secure three consecutive sets" - I'm not sure if Taylor's PPD was during sets 2-4 or 1-4 as Brown mentions Taylor's PPD after his three set wins. BBC doesn't say either. So, I suggest mentioning the PPD after his 3 consecutive set wins for chronological order. Y
  • "Taylor said afterwards he was worried about being eliminated from the tournament." - true, but as BBC Sport specifically uses "worried", I recommend using a different word to avoid copying. Y
  • "the first set without conceding a leg" - word for word copy of BBC Sport (Ice Man) for Harrington's match that needs a tweak to pass limited wording. Y
  • "He then completed the match victory in the third set 3–1" -> He then completed the match in the third set with a 3-1 victory (or something else as "match victory in the third set 3–1" sounds a bit off) for Harrington.  Note: see next point.
  • "took the second after a final leg decider" - close paraphrasing of BBC Sport (Ice Man) with "took the second" and "leg decider". I'm more concerned about "took the second" in describing Harrington's match Y
  • "and was drawn to compete against Scholten" - true, but none of the other sentences in this section mention who the winners would be facing in the quarterfinals. I think in order to remain balanced, either this needs removing or the other sentences needs mentioning who the winners would meet in the quarterfinals. Y

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Quarterfinals

edit

Paragraph 1  Y

edit
  • "produced a three-dart average finish approaching 100" - very close paraphrasing of The Independent (Askew aims straight) especially with "approaching 100". Y
  • "and achieved three maximums to winning the first set from Harvey" -> and achieved three maximums to win the first set from Harvey Y
  • "He then compiled a 161 checkout and took the next three sets to whitewash Harvey 4–0" - true, but Askew also had 3 additional maximums with his 161 checkout during that second set according to the source (I verified it with a video source as well). Y
  • "Askew attributed claiming the victory to him not partaking in celebrations for the start of 2001:" - this is grammatically off with "attributed claiming the victory to him not" Also, as The Independent uses the word attributed, I recommend dropping that word while making this sentence grammatically correct. Y
  • "Harrington took the first set without losing a leg and a 116 checkout." -> Harrington took the first set without losing a leg and had a 116 checkout. Y
  • " Scholten took the lead with victories in the following two sets until Harrington made three maximums levelled the match after none of Scholten's darts landed in the double 16 ring." - I think this could be separated into two sentences because of "until" and "after". Y
  • "Harrington took the first set without losing a leg and a 116 checkout." -> Harrington took the first set without losing a leg and had a 116 checkout. Y
  • "Scholten took the lead with victories in the following two sets until Harrington made three maximums levelled the match after none of Scholten's darts landed in the double 16 ring." - 1) BBC Sport (Diamond Shines) doesen't mention Harrington's three maximums 2) Scholten did miss the double 16 ring, but the same source only says it was one dart that missed, not mulitple  Note: see next point.
  • "Harrington subsequently regained the advantage with a finish of twelve darts and took the win in set six" - no mention of twelve dart finish in set five/six. Y

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Paragraph two  Y

edit
  • In the other quarter-finals" -> In the third quarter-final, (as you're only listing one quarterfinal here, and the final one later)
  • "The match was tied at 1–1 after two sets before Part took a 2–1 advantage." -> The match was tied after two sets before Part took a 2–1 advantage. (as 1-1 is redundant to tied). Y
  • "Part then won the next six legs to win the following two sets" - not from what I'm seeing in Planet Darts. Yes, Part won six legs during sets 3/4, but Warrnier did win a leg each in set 3/4 (i checked a video source). A slight tweak is needed.  Note: see next point.
    • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • "Part then won the following two sets" - This is a bit out of place as this is in between Part's 2-1 set lead and Part winning set five, making it redundant to the set five win. Y
        • Removed 20:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "In the second leg of the fifth set a nine-dart finish was unable to be completed by Part to which he responded with a 69 checkout with thirteen dart throws." => In the second leg of the fifth set, a nine-dart finish was unable to be completed by Part to which he responded with a 69 checkout with thirteen dart throws.  Note: see next point
  • "As Deller was not able to challenge Taylor" - doesn't sound netural. I think if if was explained why with the Independent source (Deller swept aside), then it might work. Otherwise, I suggest removing it. Y
  • "Taylor said his performance had improved from the day before and noted Deller's play" - Before the quote you included, Taylor said "Keith didn't play as well as he can". I think this needs to be included (whether it being summarized/quoted) as the quote doesn't sound right without it.  Note: see next point.

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Semi-finals

edit

Paragraph one  Y

edit

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Paragraph two  Y

edit

Final

edit

Paragraph one / two  Y

edit
  • "He had previously won the world championship eight times (in 1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000)" - I think the bracketed part should be rewritten for Taylor in order to remove the brackets and avoid sounding like a side-note. Y
  • "A finish in fourteen darts won Taylor the first set 3–1." => Taylor won the first set 3-1 with a finish of fourteen darts. Y
  • "He then took the second set and prevented Part from attempting to win a leg with a dart landing inside a double ring." - sorta. Planet Darts does say Part didn't get a chance with the double ring, but it wasn't an attempt for Part to win a leg.  Note: see next point
  • "Taylor compiled the tournament's highest checkout, a 167 in ten dart throws," - I'm not sure if the 10 dart finish and 167 checkout were in the same leg per The Indepednent (Taylor takes game to new level). PlanetDarts also mentiones the 10 dart finish was in the fifth set, not third. So, if you want to keep this, it'd have to be reordered for chronlogical puproses. Y
  • "and won the set after Part missed the bullseye ring in the leg prior." - true, but this would need to be reordered as Part's missed bullseye happened in leg one, Taylor hit the 167 checkout in leg 2, then Taylor won the set in leg 3. Y
  • "Part was unable to convert seven chances to land a dart in one of the double rings." - also true, but since BBC Sport (Faultless Taylor) mentiones this was up to set four, this sentence would need to be re-ordered with Y

" He then won six successive legs to go 5–0 ahead with a finish of ten dart throws and an 82 checkout" as Taylor's ten dart finish/82 checkout happened in set 5. Y

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Paragraph three  Y

edit
  • "Part said Taylor was a deserved champion:" - This one is odd as the colon suggests the "deserved champion" part is introducing the quoted part, but it's to a different reference (Faultless Taylor BBC Sport vs. Taylor takes final adversary The Times). If you want the deserved champion part, it'd have to be separate from the quoted part and not a colon.  Note: see next point
  • "Playing Phil is completely oppressive, take Tiger Woods and double it,...It was a special performance, unreal, and I just couldn't measure up." - none of this quote is in the Taylor takes final adversary apart source. I see part of it mentioned in the Faultless Taylor source, but not all of it.  Note: see next point

Lead/infobox  Y

edit

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Leftover points

edit

As i feel that this review will be long, I'll leave the leftover points here in case they were not fully fixed the first time around:

  • Round 1: missing comma in Askew's match Y, replacing points per dart with average for Burnett (my mistake, not yours) Y, extra source to verify 3-1 final score for Lim Y, comma for Scholten's match

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Overall

edit

Overall, the main issue is grammar whether it being tenses, commas or sentence structure. For other issues: there are instances of OR (e.g., the Tiger Woods quote by Part not existing in the reference), question of whether the John Part picture is properly licensed or not (as I can't access an archived copy of the link in the Commons page), and making sure that the Steve Brown reference does pass WP:Primary as he was a competitor at the tournament for reliability. There was an issue of neturality ("Deller was not able to challenge Taylor") and focus (mentioning that Lloyd won the 1999 Eastbourne Open) but both have been resolved already. As most of the article has been worked on while I was reviewing the article, I'm willing to place this article on hold for a week. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Otherwise, article has a ref layout, MOS is good for lead, layout and words to watch, is broad, stable, and has relevant pics.

Note: I've left a talk page message to the uploader of the John Part picture here. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@MWright96: I see you removed the Part picture. If the licensing does get confirmed, you could restore the picture at a later date. But for now, everything has been done. I'll be promoting this. Well done! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply