Talk:2002 BDO World Darts Championship/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 22:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

edit
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
edit

Prose

edit

Lede

edit
  • Should we note that Surrey is in England?
  • Can we have the official title (With Embassy) in the lede somewhere.
  • The infobox should have a year in the event title.
  • Tony David, who has the blood-clotting disorder haemophilia, - whilst I'm sure it's important that he has the disorder, is it really super relevent to him winning the event? If there is a note regarding his disorder being notable, I'm sure we can place that elsewhere in the lede.
  • England captain Martin Adams is a seaofblue. Try England captain Martin Adams
  • A women's world championship was held for the second time. - should be in the first paragraph. See notes later
  • Is a whitewash really suitible for a best-of-3?

General

edit
  • The background section should arguably be it's own section. The article writes as if the event is only for men, and there happens to be a women's event. Even if that is how the media projects this, we shouldn't.
  • was seeded first and Martin Adams, the England captain, was seeded second - were they seeded second because they were the England captain?
  • The remaining five places... This bit is after the seedings. It should probably explain this is for the qualification places.
  • Do we need sources after each player name?
  • best-of-11 frames - I don't think you meant this.
  • "to qualify for the BDO championship." - I prefer "took their places".
  • Is it Round 1 or first round?
  • He began with a maximum (180) - do we need to say both?
  • Eighth seed Wayne Mardle went 2–0 ahead of Richardson in set three before the latter equalled at 2–2 . - needs a source, and fix punct
  • Quarter-finals to the final - is a terrible name for a section. If we move the above bit to a background section, you don't need a subsection.
  • three-dart finishing averages - Isn't this a three-dart averages?

GA Review

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Comments

edit