Talk:Steve Davis/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steve Davis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at this article over the next few days, and then start to leave some comments. SilkTork *^YES! 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

I'll put comments down here as I'm reading through. I'll summarise the GA criteria points later. SilkTork *^YES! 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

• I'm not sure that the fair use rationale for File:How to be really interesting by Steve Davis book cover.jpg is adequate. Please check at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

  Remove I saw the question posted at *:MCQ. I don't see this image meeting fair use requirements. The subject of the article is Steve Davis, not the book, and the cover of the book does not add anything significant to the article, nor is the book seemingly discussed beyond a single sentence mentioning it. Were it to be removed, there would not be a detrimental loss of information. Written in the "purpose of use" of the image's fair-use rationale is "To show Davis was a published author", but the reader already knows he's a published author, because the text says he is (and it is cited). A copyrighted image is not needed to support this. If the book's cover were vitally important to the article and were discussed at length, then the image would have a better reason for remaining. Feel free to seek out another opinion as well; good luck on the GA! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Removed image. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  My fault, I didn't realize there was an entire paragraph that goes into the "interesting" nickname. I think, though, that the sentence about the book—written "with Geoff Atkinson"—should be moved up to the first paragraph to seal the deal. Davis was given the nickname "Interesting" and he played with the name, going so far as to write a book about "being Interesting". Oh, and the "purpose of use" definitely needs to be updated. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Updated "purpose of use". Hope it's good now. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not going to lie, I still think the image barely holds any fair-use water—keep in mind that the image must make "a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone." I will add this language to the rationale, and we'll see what happens. I saw that The Rambling Man really wanted it in there, so let me fix his image description a bit more. His source link doesn't work, so I'll find a new source as well. Then you may have to bring in a third opinion as to whether or not the image should be allowed to stay or if it should be removed. Also, did you notice the "Images" section (Talk:Steve_Davis#Images) on the article's talk page? I think that at least one of the images on Flickr would be a nice touch to the article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  IMO the book cover rationale appears to be ok now, so its use is acceptable. You may find some of these links useful to support the "interesting" name itslef: Daily Telegraph, The Sun BBC Sport and this YouTube Davis interview that includes the Spitting Image skit. ww2censor (talk) 16:13,

  If anyone raises a further issue with this image, but others feel it is important, the obvious solution is to add more material about the book (critical reception, etc.), create a redirect to this section in this article from the book's title, and make it clear that the current article is also the article on the book unless and until there is a need for the book to have its own separate article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• File:Steve Davis.jpg - this has a claim of permission for the Dutch Wikipedia, but not for the English. This should either be removed or appropriate permission sought.

  This file was deleted from the Dutch Wikipedia. Removed image from article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• File:Wiki stevedavis upload.jpg - this is OK. SilkTork *^YES! 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 5 May 2011 (UTC)

MoS

• The lead needs developing per WP:Lead. SilkTork *^YES! 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  Expanded lead. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Good work - this is much better. The lead would still benefit from a brief overview of his life, though as I'm looking at the article there may be some minor changes, so it would be OK to leave further development of the lead until the review is finished. I'm thinking of Davis's early life here, which is missing from the article. It is conventional in the main body to have birth date and place and education, and development of the skills or interests for which the subject is known. Do we know where Davis was educated? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  I couldn't find any information about education, parent and development of skills. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Precise_language, the word "recent" should be avoided. I would suggest changing the section header from "Recent years" to something more specific, or even just "later years". – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Split section in two and neither of the contains ther word recent. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Good, but actually avoid "later years" as it implies that the subject is dead. We don't know that these are his later years yet, since he could live to be 120+ (the world record is older, and medical technology improves all the time), with these thus being his middle years. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  There us no "Later years" section in the article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Off the table section

• I tweaked the beginning of the "Off the table" section a little, but I noticed a few problems. I brought the "Interesting" book into the section discussing the nickname "interesting", keeping the "play upon this image" phrase, since it works perfectly this way. I did not make the connection between the original edit, an "Interesting" nickname being played off by being a pundit or a commentator on some TV show. The two subjects didn't seem to have anything to do with one another. The "Spitting Image" citation links—both archived and original (since sometimes, though rarely, they differ)—don't mention any "interesting" nickname at all. I would try to locate some good sources. I saw The Telegraph made reference to "Interesting", but I didn't read through the entire article to see if it mentions Spitting Image. Also, IMDb is a user-contributed source, so it's not considered reliable in certain circumstances. I think it's okay to cite IMDb to show that Davis appeared in They Think It's All Over, but the pundit remark needs to be sourced. In fact, the BBC snooker coverage should be sourced, since the IMDb citation only links to They Think It's All Over. If you can find an article that mentions Davis as appearing on the quiz show, this would be stronger than the IMDb link. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 09:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Added a source for pundit and the "Interesting" nickname. As I know IMDb is only considered unreliable to biography information, thus it should be acceptable in this case. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• This section seems to cover personal life, as well as his media work, and might be usefully split into two. The title is odd - is this snooker WP:Jargon? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Split section into three. Grouped sports related information (other than snooker) into "Other sports", and the remaining info is in "In other media" and "Personal Life". Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  It is (was? I'm not sure what it will say later today) snooker/pool/billiards jargon in a way, but in a form that is readily understood by most, because the on/off metaphor is used everywhere, like on vs. off the court in tennis, on vs. off the field in football, on vs. off the ice in hockey, on vs. off the stage/screen in acting, and so on. Losing it wouldn't hurt anything, though. I agree that the article is well-developed enough now that splitting this information into more specific sections is a good idea. If this were a stub I wouldn't do that, but we clearly have enough for personal, media, other sports. I'm not sure that "other media" works, though. I would arrange this article by his life as a snooker player, his roles in the media (naturally most snooker-oriented), and his personal life, not lump snooker playing and snooker media into one snooker categories, and other media shunted into another. It's confusing for the reader that way, because it implies that he's especially notable in non-snooker media, which he isn't. If in snooker retirement he became a best-selling horror novelist or something, that would be a different case. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well I couldn't come up with anything better for "other media". Section mostly contains info about books, music and television appearances (not related to snooker). Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Prose

• Prose is mostly clear, though could do with a copyedit as there are basic errors in the lead alone with missing words - "Outside of snooker Davis is known writer and a pool player." Should be either "... is a known writer..." or "...is known as a writer..." - "He is also a former World Doubles champion with Tony Meo, won the World Cup four times with England." Why is there an "however" and an "also" in this sentence: "Davis' extensive list of achievements, however, also include victory in the UK Championship, the Masters and the Premier League." This sentence ends on a different point to the start - "He has won more professional titles in the sport than any other player, including six World Championships during the 1980s, when he was the world number one for seven years and reached eight world finals, becoming the sport's first millionaire." Split into two sentences? I haven't checked the rest of the article for prose, though dipping in here and there I find casual language and inappropriate idioms such as "clawed his way back", "gained a measure of revenge" - check with WP:WTA. Some paragraphs are fairly short, giving a choppy feel which inhibits flow. I don't think these matters are serious, and should be able to be fixed with half an hour's work. SilkTork *^YES! 11:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Have rewritten the entire article. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• Notes: "The event run..." - these should be "The event ran..." or "The event is run..." SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Corrected. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking

• While I did not go through the whole article in detail, I noted several words are wikilinked more than once, so unless they are absolutely necessary should be unlinked. Masters (snooker) and Classic (snooker) are just two examples I saw. Links that appear in tables are a separate issue but WP:REPEATLINK implies the same rule applies that within tables so one instance should be sufficient there too though I don't see editors enforcing it to any extent. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  Removed the most of the overlinking, but I think it should remain in the table. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  There's a general (if unwritten? I haven't checked in ages) consensus (as is obvious from actual practice) that links should be repeated in tables unless readers are expected to actually read the entire table from top to bottom rather than look for specific entries in it (otherwise they are unlikely to see the original link in the table). Sport-related tables are rarely of the kind read from top to bottom; people are usually looking up a specific stat. Otherwise, yeah, there was overlinking there. This is a common problem in major snooker articles (and other high or "high-ish" traffic articles), because the subjects are popular and thus frequently edited by noobs, and by multiple editors per day who don't necessarily read the entire thing. Just something that has to be pruned from time to time. Armbrust, you are a very active snooker editor, so you might want to especially keep an eye on this problem in other articles as you "cruise" them. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Tables

• There is a lot of table data at the bottom of the article. I'm wondering how much this impacts on GA criteria, and on general Wiki advice on readability and accessibility. There is the sense that the information is over precise per WP:NOT#STATS, and may be failing 3 (b) - "going into unnecessary detail", though tables are seen as an exception. MOS:COLLAPSE does indicate that "Collapsible sections may be used ... in tables which consolidate information covered in the prose", so I have considered if the best way of dealing with the situation is to collapse the tables; though there is the sense that is simply hiding the information. I looked at some FA articles on sports people - Alain Prost, Damon Hill, Sid Barnes, Lee Smith (baseball), Michael Jordan and Ian Thorpe and didn't find as much use of stats or tables. I think we may need to look at removing less-essential data, and/or presenting the data in a more compressed and reader-friendly form. There are, for example, some events tabled that are not notable enough for articles. And further, some tables that detail the results of "Non-ranking finals". As this is a general encyclopaedia entry rather than a detailed book, we should be looking at giving the reader the main information - filtering it for the reader so they are presented with the most important information, and leaving the minor details for the books. Can we look at condensing that data into one table that details his significant details? SilkTork *^YES! 11:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think the tables should be filtered. There is two other snooker biography GA articles (Ronnie O'Sullivan and Shaun Murphy (snooker player)), and there was no problem with them. In the case of Davis its just, that he has won many more tournaments during his career. If the tables go in the way to promoting this article to GA, than be it. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  I was thinking this afternoon that perhaps the data is in the same category as a discography/filmography/bibliography, so in the article you get the main information as in George_Orwell#Bibliography, while the extra detail is placed in a standalone article as in George Orwell bibliography. SilkTork *^YES! 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't like the idea, as it would be inconsistent with other snooker biography articles. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  I like consistency of style and format as it assists the reader to know what to expect. Though as regards information and how to present it in the most useful manner, that will vary according to circumstances. This article has more statistics than is needed - as such it is pushing against Wikipedia guidelines. When an article has a greater focus on detail than is needed, and is unbalancing the article, then by convention, consensus and long established guideline we either reduce, remove or split off the data. If you're not happy with splitting it off, then we are faced with reducing or removing it. I had considered if collapsing it would be appropriate, but I'm not sure - and if the info is hidden in a collapsed table, then it might as well be split off into a standalone article where the data can be reached the same way - with a simple click. While not every sports person has achievements that can fill a standalone article, there are some who do, and the achievements make decent stand alone list articles like List of Ricky Ponting's achievements and statistics, and many such lists become featured, such as List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan, List of Ricky Ponting's achievements and statistics, First-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace, International cricket centuries by David Gower, etc. And such lists of accomplishments are not confined to sport, you also get featured lists such as List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas. Splitting off such information into a standalone list article is firmly seen as a positive thing, while keeping it embedded in a parent article is seen as a negative thing. SilkTork *^YES! 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well even if it will be done later, I will not do it. Not even for bringing the article to GA class. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

  You don't need to do it, anyone can do it. There is a convention in GA reviews that the main reviewer lists what needs to be done (and other editors may join in with their observations); then various editors, including the nominator and the reviewer, can do the edits. It doesn't rest just on the nominator. At the same time, the GA reviewer is just another editor, and has no more and no less control of an article under review than any other editor. A GA reviewer cannot demand another editor do something. Nor can a GA reviewer implement a controversial change without discussion. I am a firm believer in discussion and negotiation. What I am feeling here is that the article as it currently stands does not meet relevant Wiki guidelines and so does not meet GA criteria. However, my interpretation of the guidelines is open to debate. What I am not clear on here is if you are objecting to my observations, or you are saying that you are personally not willing to do the work. If you are objecting, then it would be helpful for you to explain your objections. If it's that you are unwilling to do the work, then - as I said - someone else may do the work - it's not just down to you. I could do the work if you prefer. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  I think the tables are needed on this article, because without them the article wouldn't be complete. Tables contain not many stats, only the results. I would agree with you, if the table would contain other statistics too (for example pot, long pot and safety percentages). The tables shouldn't removed without consensus. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the article be complete without the information in the tables? Tables are only a way of presenting information. It is the detail in the tables that is being questioned. Some of the important data is already mentioned in the article - it is the other, less important data, that is being questioned. For example - that Davis was a runner up in the Kit-Kat Break for World Champions, the Matchroom Professional Championship, and the Guangzhou Masters. Do you see that listing that he was a runner up in various minor tournaments might be seen as excessive detail which could be moved to a separate page, leaving this page just for the important detail. How is the general reader to work out from those lists of data which is important?

I'm quite comfortable with finishing the review and if you are still uncertain about removing some of the detail to a sub-article, asking for a second opinion. Though I'd like you to look more closely at the guidelines I've linked and see where you think my interpretation has erred. I may well be wrong (often am!), and information gained from this review will be useful when applied to other articles and reviews. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Meh. Nothing seriously wrong with it either way. The article is consistent with the treatment of other major snooker bios, including GAs. Splitting would be okay, too. It might even be a sign of WP:SNOOKER maturity as a project that some of its bio articles are being so well-developed that they are splitting. But it is actually an impediment to readability/usability to fork just one thing off of a main article like that. It's a different matter if the article is entirely done in WP:SUMMARY style with use of {{main}} in most or every section and a clipped "just the facts, ma'am" style - users quickly understand that the article is a "micro-portal" with most of the content in subarticles. But it's confusing to have a well-developed, self-contained article suddenly stop being well-developed and self-contained. A good example of how annoying this is, is a TV show article on a new series that has already forked off a "List of [whatever] episodes" subarticle, despite only having 2 episodes and no indication that it will ever have a second season (or series in UK English), and thus no actual need for such a subarticle; cf. The Borgias (2011 TV series). It's jarring, and a waste of both editor and reader time and effort. Anyway, I'll remain skeptical but neutral-ish, but wanted to point out that there are sane rationales in both directions (and actually more than one option, such as trimming the amount of detail but retaining the tables, or as you proposed making the tables collapsible, and so on). A split would be valid, but should only be done if a) the tabular data is seen as genuinely overwhelming or "TMI" in the context (and do consider that in the context of statistics-heavy sports like snooker, lots of stats are expected and would be considered a frustrating omission if hard to find), and b) there is enough data to make a good separate article (splitting content off into a stub often results in a re-merge after a while). But don't count me as your 2nd opinion; ask another regular GA reviewer, preferably one who commonly deals with sports bios. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Your point about snooker relying on stats is well taken, though that is not the only topic to do so; cricket, for example, enjoys statistics - which is why I gave the examples above of some cricket articles. It would be worth putting article and sub-article side by side - Muttiah Muralitharan and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan; Ricky Ponting and List of Ricky Ponting's achievements and statistics; W. G. Grace and First-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace. No information is lost, and the stats are placed a click away (like turning a page), where those interested can closely consult them. I agree that there is a tendency sometimes to split too soon. Just as there is a tendency sometimes not to split. It's the careful and considered balance that we are looking for. Here's an example of what the split off article might look like - /Steve Davis stats - and that is far from a stub. That does have the makings of a featured list. What would remain in the parent article? That, I think, is what we should be discussing. I like the Performance timeline table, and that could be re-jigged slightly to carry the significant data, and be the table to remain. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well the /Steve Davis stats has almost no context and find collapsing the tables a better option (although not good). Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 01:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

References

• The article is rich with inline cites - every statement, questionable or not, gets a citation. I am fully supportive of that approach, and congratulate the contributors on their endeavours so far. My focus now is on the quality of the sources, and to check if the sources do support what is said. Has snooker.org been verified as a reliable source? It is a self-published amateur site - however, it has website awards, including from the BBC, and if a site is well respected, and cited by others, then we do accept it as reliable. I've looked in the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, but couldn't find any previous discussions. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Dave Hendon, snooker commentator for Eurosport, even call it best website on his blog. See there. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  Snooker sources aren't in abundance unfortunately, and it seems to be the case that the best sources of information are websites maintained by enthusiasts. The records and stats are often better kept than they are on the official WSA site. Nevertheless, there is a standard. One of the main criteria for assessing whether a source meets RS status is if other RS sources cite the source. Snooker Scene, the sport's leading magazine has a list of 'useful' links: http://www.snookerscene.co.uk/page.php?id=10; Under "News and Results" Snooker Scene lists four websites for news and results: the BBC, Eurosport, Global Snooker and WWW Snooker (http://www.snooker.org). If it's good enough for Snooker Scene it's good enough for in the context that it is presented i.e. news and results. Betty Logan (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Also - Chris Turner’s Snooker Archive. It looks a good site, but as it hasn't been through WP:RSN, it's worth asking the question there. Both these sites appear to be used on a good deal of other articles, so I should think they are OK. But as they are self-published, they need checking. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 16:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  This site is maintained by Chris Turner, who is a sports writer, as can be seen there. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  As with Snooker.org above, Chris Turner's archive is listed by Snooker Scene under "Miscellaneous" as a "historical archive": http://www.snookerscene.co.uk/page.php?id=10; as above, if Snooker Scene regards it as quality source of information that is probably good enough for RS. Betty Logan (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Actually, its frequent use in other articles here is a really good reason to check out its reliability, since few snooker articles have been through the GA wringer yet!. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have posted on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've just looked for books on Steve Davis and I'm surprised that such a popular and well known and important person doesn't have many books on him. However, there is Steve Davis: Snooker Champion, which is available for a 1p from Amazon. The article suggests that he has written only three books, though Amazon lists more including Successful Snooker, Play Snooker, a cook book, and Frame and Fortune. As this article currently doesn't make use of Steve Davis's own books, which I think would be useful, I would be reluctant to pass this on "broad coverage" until those sources (Steve Davis: Snooker Champion & Frame and Fortune) are consulted. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yeah, incomplete info on him as an author is a significant factuality/completeness issue. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Expanded section with more books. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• We have a problem with the two main sources. As pointed out on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, the Wikipedia:BLP policy - which, as we know is strictly enforced - says: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject...". Until this article removes material which relies solely on those sources I cannot list it as a Good Article. The article needs appropriate sourcing - which will come from those books I mentioned which are written by Steve Davis. Has anyone ordered those books yet? SilkTork *^{Tea time} 01:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  Unfortunately I don't have neither the books, nor the money to order them. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Organisation of article

• The Status section is very short, and doesn't adequately convey his achievements or status. It might be more useful to rename that section Achievements, and summarise his major achievements so far. These are given in the lead, but are then scattered in the article and not easy to find.SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Moved at the beginning of the "Career" section. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Off the table section might be usefully split into Davis's Media work and his Personal life, with appropriate section titles. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  See my comment in "#Off the table section". Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• A little more information on Davis's background would be appropriate and useful. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  See my comment in "#MoS". Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Performance timeline

• This is a useful table. I think it would work better, though, if it were turned, so the dates come down the left column, and the tournament achievements are shown in each date row. This is a personal observation not a GA criteria, and based on the fact that one needs to scroll the table to see it all, whereas if it were arranged slightly differently, the info could be seen as a whole. If Davis didn't attend a tournament then it would be better not showing it, as that makes it clearer what he did and didn't enter. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 12:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  This wouldn't beneficial to the article as it has too many rows and the table would need to be scrolled too. It would also made the addition of new tournaments unnecessarily difficult. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Can you explain that in more detail, Armbrust? Tables aren't particularly difficult to edit regardless what column comes first, so I'm not following your meaning here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well it was my personal opinion. I think it's easier to edit the table in it's current form (for example if an event is discontinued, you can move all information related to it with one cut & paste) and is also consistent with other snooker bio articles. And the suggested change couldn't solve the reviewers problem with the scrolling. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

On hold

This is a useful article which currently needs a little more work to meet the GA criteria. The sourcing relies heavily on two web sites whose reliability needs to be verified, and does not make use of books on or by the subject. As such it will not pass 2 (b). The lead needs a little more building, and more consideration given to organisation of the article, so this doesn't quite meet 1 (b). There is too much focus on the stats at the bottom of the article, while a useful summary of Davis's achievements is lacking from the main body; at the same time a little more information regarding Davis's early life would be worthwhile. Article doesn't fully meet 3. There is still a questionable image in the article. I think the work needed to reach GA status is not that much, though it is likely that obtaining the books by Davis's will take a couple of days, plus a few days to read, so I will put this on hold for 14 days, though will close earlier if sufficient work is done within this time. I will get a second opinion on the question of criteria 3 (b) - "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" when/if that remains the only sticking point. I can be reached on my talkpage or by email, though I will drop by here now and again to see how things are developing. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 13:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see that a lot of work has been done while this GAN has been on hold. Well done to everyone involved, especially in replacing the snooker.org with more reliable sources.
• The questionable image is still in place. This cannot be passed for GA while that issue is not resolved.
• Has the overlinking been addressed? Dennis Taylor was linked at least four times in the text and Alex Higgins twice. They were the only names I checked. Be worth someone doing a careful check on the rest of the article. Noticing a lot of red links to Classic I hovered over two of these,and they both went to 1987. The nature of the linking makes checking them at a glance quite difficult, as sometimes an event is given a full name, and sometimes an abbreviation by date and sometimes by name. I can see the rationale for linking to articles on these events, though it would be helpful to have some form of consistency so the reader knows what is behind the link.
• The Chris Turner source is still being used. This cannot be listed as a GA with sources that are disallowed by policy.
• I note that the books by Davies, which might be useful sources, are still not being used. Has someone acquired them and discovered that the information is not useful?
• I will ask for a second opinion on the data in the tables when we are in a position that the tables are the deciding factor in this being listed as a GA.
• As progress is being made I will put on hold for another 7 days to allow the image question to be resolved; the Chris Turner source to be replaced; and the overlinking to be double checked. I haven't checked through broad coverage, nor read through the prose, and will do that when I next look. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Refresh

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Images OK. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Stable. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Has reference section. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Too much unnecessary detail. Will get second opinion on this later. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Fails reliable references check. The Chris Turner site is still being used even though that is against BLP policy. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Lead still needs development. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Article doesn't appear to indulge in any original research, and appears fair and neutral. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• Article appears to cover main points, though it would seem appropriate to consult major or significant sources, such as Davis's two autobiographies, before passing this as broad coverage. There is, sadly (and surprisingly, given his importance in snooker), little info on Davis other than brief newspaper mentions and stats on snooker sites, so it would be inappropriate to pass this as broad coverage until the main sources are consulted. The two books only cost 1p + postage from Amazon, so money shouldn't be a bar to someone interested in this topic. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 09:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• The prose could do with a little more attention - there are some short paragraphs, and some sentences appear quite short while others are quite long, and there are a few casual words, such as "whitewash", though this is fairly minor. The article is fairly dense with dates and stats, though this may be due to the nature of the sources consulted, and on the whole the prose is clear enough to convey meaning and meets the GA criteria. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Recommended. There is a lot of linking in the article which doesn't aid readability. Be more selective over what needs linking, and reduce the less important links. Baked beans, for example, doesn't need linking. If the link is not important to an understanding of the article, then remove it. I have removed some links in a small section as I was reading. More can go. And I question the need to link to every tournament that Davis appeared in. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that work is still taking place on the article, and some issues, such as the contentious image, have been dealt with. However, there are still a number of remaining aspects that need attention, and if more substantial progress is not made in the next 7 days it might be better to close this GAN and return to it later, giving people more time to address the issues, if they can. If the excessive detail is the only remaining issue by June 9, then I will get a second opinion, but if there are still other significant issues, such as the referencing, then I will close. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Close: Not listed

The Chris Turner source is still being used, so this article cannot be listed as a Good Article. Before closing, I think it's worth saying that while it would be useful to consult Davis's biographies, the article appears to be broad enough to pass the GA criteria on coverage without it. Other than that, the comments immediately above still apply, and would be the areas that editors need to work on to improve this article. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 08:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

Resolved

I do think the article could do with some images to spruce it up a little. Although Commons has a few other images at commons:Category:Steve_Davis,_snooker_player, there are two excellent photographs at Flickr that are licensed CC-BY 2.0 by a user named Jeppe2. They look legit (and pass the TinEye.com test). They also include camera info and plenty of details on what was happening when the image was taken. Here they are: [1], [2]. (A third, bizzare one: [3].) I would upload both to Commons and throw them into this article. If you're busy working on the article, let me know and I'll be happy to do the uploading for you. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I added one of the Flickr images to the article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 10:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thnaks. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What is it with this place?

I try to improve the article with new information and all I get are pedants and blowhards like 'Armbrust' telling me my edits are 'vandalism' or 'poor quality'. That's when they even bother to give an explanation. Maybe 'Armbrust' can tell us all what is poor quality and vandalous about this : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Davis&action=historysubmit&diff=427753137&oldid=427751615 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.15.132 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Armbrust is currently guiding this article through its GA review so no-one should really be making big changes to it beyond what the GA reviewer suggests. Once it passes or fails you can do what you want to it subject to consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't think the user was making any huge changes here. Secondly, if you're saying "no-one should really be making big changes to it beyond what the GA reviewer suggests", it might be a good idea to quote (or link to) the relevant policy, so that the editor knows that's not just your opinion. Mato (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate further, many of this user's edits have substantially improved the prose in the article (in my opinion). It might be a good idea to get someone like this on board at WP:Snooker, rather than deterring them by reverting their edits as vandalism. Mato (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a policy governing editing during a GA review as I am sure you well know (do we really have to reduce a collaborative effort to policy points all the time on Wikipedia?), but one of the requirements is that the article is stable. Generally it's considered bad form to edit an article under review beyond the changes asked for, because it means the reviewer has to re-review the alterations, and the lack of a stability can cause a fail meaning that both the reviewer and the nominator have wasted their time. It's just a matter of being considerate to these two editors, a review only lasts a week or two so editing beyond the requirements of the review can surely wait until then? Editors are welcome to improve prose (i.e. improve the standard of writing, but don't change the inheretnt meaning of the prose) and references and make other MOS improvements, but the editor did alter some of the information content, which means we have to ensure it is correctly sourced and neutral i.e. it changes the goal posts of the review. The editor could work on the other player articles in the interim (the snooker articles need more editors so he's more than welcome), or if he's interested in this particular article then waiting a week isn't much to ask for, but Armbrust has worked on putting this through its review so please don't derail it for him. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I do of course understand what you've said. I also agree with the points you've made and respect the effort that has gone into this article.
The only reason I'm here involving myself is because of the way the anonymous editor has been treated. Often their edits have been reverted with little or no explanation as to why. Where explanations have been given, they often don't tie up. The editor was even reported for a ban for vandalism at WP:AIV, which is a completely inappropriate way to respond.
I'd love for this article to do well in its review (especially as I happen to be a big fan of Steve Davis), but this article's GA review is not more important than the way we treat other (especially new) editors. Mato (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Flags

Can someone check that the use of flags without country names (per the various tables) is congruent with WP:MOSFLAG please? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Flags should probably be removed from the infobox as per "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes" at WP:FLAGBIO. We permit the use of flags in result and draw sheets as per WP:SNOOKER/NF. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the manual of style allow flags (without country names)? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FLAGBIO is only applicable for birth, residence or death, but to indicate which nation the player represent within their sport (in this case snooker) doesn't fall under it. The use of flags in tables without country names is consistent with Wikipedia practice. They are used on every tennis player biography articles too, where the player has won/reached a final of a tournament. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 09:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not "consistent with Wikipedia practice" unless you mean a bad practice or a habit that fails to meet the manual of style. WP:MOSFLAG says that flags should not be used without the country name. It says:

Accompany flags with country names
The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags

I think you need a "nationality" column here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And I think if this is really a bad practice, than it should be addressed somewhere else, because it concerns hundreds if not thousands of articles and not just this one. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. But just because other stuff exists, it doesn't make it right. And I thought this was being submitted for good article review? Best to fix these things and have a brilliant GA rather than one with MOS flaws throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't need a nationality column, that is the purpose of the flags. The MOS says it is acceptable to use flags without country names in tables or lists. List of WPA World Nine-ball champions is given as an example of correct usage, and I would say that the table on this article conforms to the same standard. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So you don't care about people who don't recognise the flags or those with accessibility concerns? The tables need serious work in any case, adding a nationality column would be trivial. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think adding a nationality column would risk atering the context of the information: it would make it look like the player was playing for his country rather than just a representative of it. Maybe a legend box for the flags would be an acceptable middle ground? After all, the MOS says it isn't necessary to associate every instance of the flag with its country. Betty Logan (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Betty Logan's idea is an acceptable alternative. If The Rambling Man accepts, then I will add it to the section. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, fine by me, a legend box has been used several times where the country may "get in the way" (as it were). I think that would be acceptable, and particularly as there aren't too many countries to note here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Added legend to the section. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice. I'm in the process of making the tables accessible. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Table sorting

Resolved

 – Tables now sort correctly. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like some work will need to be done on the sortablility of the tables. We now use {{sortname}} to sort correctly by surname, and the score columns seem to need some work, right now they sort completely incorrectly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected sorting of tables. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good work. Now we just need to try to make them accessible and I'd also like an explanation of what the No. column means somewhere as it's not immediately obvious at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Blank cells

In the "Career finals" section, there are a few blank cells. This is confusing, these should be addressed with referenced notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Added referenced notes to these cells. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-ranking finals

Resolved

 – Thanks for clearing that up. I've altered the name so it matches up to the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The book came through from the library today so I've been able to replace some of the references. Some of the results where in the wrong order so I've correct those (presuming the book has them in the right order). Unfortunately it only records results from matches of at least 9 frames, so I wasn't able to replace them all.

Another problem that has arisen is that the book calls the "Matchroom Professional Championship" the "Matchroom Trophy". The problem here is that the 1985 International Open was also called the Matchroom Trophy (which the book also calls the Matchroom Trophy!) but they were different events since the International Open went back to being called the International Open, after being called the Goya Matchroom Trophy in 1985. Either there were two events called the Matchroom Trophy (unlikely but not impossible) or the book has confused the two names (more likely). We need to verify exactly what the 1986–1988 event was called (either the Matchroom Professional Championship or the Matchroom Trophy), preferably with a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Clive Everton's The Embassy Book of World Snooker, there were indeed two events with the same name. It is listed as simply the Matchroom Trophy for 1986 and 1987 (distinct from the 1985 Goya Matchroom Trophy, which as you say was the International), and the LEP Matchroom Championship for 1988. Clarity obviously wasn't a priority when they named these tournaments. SteveO (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

PTC events

Why has the PTC event details been deleted and a commented added that they do no require so much detail? To a player like Davis at this stage in his career these events are very telling of his future thoughts regarding his particioation in the game. If he doesn't enter them or enters and performs badly, because of the significant changes in the way the rankings are made, it is not beyond reasonable doubt that Davis could retire at the end of this season. A first round defeat to James Wattana, may only be seen as being a push more towards that notion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.32.67 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's supposed to be a biographical article not a scorecard. The entire PTC tour ideally shouldn't receive any more coverage than a typical tournament, otherwise it will monopolise the season summaries. If he gets some good results then by all means add them, but a first round defeat in a single PTC event simply isn't notable in the career of someone like Davis. If he drops off the tour then that is notable, and the factors that caused it can be added to the article from that perspective. On another note Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used as sources anyway, if you want to add results use the BBC or the World Snooker site or something. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In part I agree with your points, however given that this starts Davis' season, the information is important in the context of the start of the season. For each event is telling of what his future in snooker is likely to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.32.67 (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't you think given the stage of career that Davis is in that it is vitally important to show that he has started the season and what events he entered? to delete them and leave only the 2010/11 season as the last entry when the new one has started is irrational and wrong. 94.7.32.67 (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. As Betty Logan said this is biographical article, and have to be balanced. There shouldn't be undue weight to the PTC event, even so if Davis lost in the first round and violates the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy. And to your point about "is telling of what his future in snooker is likely to be", this is pure speculation, which is against the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball policy. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Retirement

What's speculative about providing a list of times Davis has defended possible retirement, it's quite a real subject adn nothing speculative at all about it, he himself has defended his positon whilst others, notably Dennis Taylor amongst many have questioned his continued playing. For a player like Davis it is ludicrous to think that this is not an issue 157.203.254.1 (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, fair point. Relocated relevant info and remove speculation, info about PTC (over-detailed) and Australian Goldfields Open (only ranking tournaments are relevant, where Davis competes.) Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 18:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW a "retirement" section should only made if Davis actually retires, and not because of speculation by journalists and other players about it. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also, any speculation about retirement is just that: speculation. Therefore we should just stick to what Davis himself says on the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disgree with the point that PTC's are not important to Davis, As Davis, withdrew from the Australian Open, it would create a faulse impression of his view on this season, as he did enter PTC1, thus he is still playing and does intend to contiue. It is completely wrong to delete the writting about the PTC1 entry and Australian Open, for as the season has already started, it creates an impression that Davis is not playing proffessional snooker, in the contect of a whole season, yes each individual PTC event etc are of little note, but given it's the start of the season and Davis' age and stage of his career, it is vitally important to shw that he has started it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you have the right to disagree. But the PTC has (1) too many events to list them all and (2) are a minor-ranking series. If you see other articles, they only contain the best results in the PTC events, thus a first round defeat isn't relevant. And tournaments where Davis didn't play are equally irrelevant. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 18:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh and the article can't created any impressions about Davis' view about the current season. So it's speculation to say anything about it. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 18:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you understood what I wrote? I said, "In the context of a whole season, yes each individual PTC event etc are of little note, but given it's the start of the season and Davis' age and stage of his career, it is vitally important to show that he has started it". Thus to say that a first round loss in a PTC event and withdrawing from the first ranker of season are irrelevant is absurd. It leaves the 2011/12 season unstarted which as I've said before, in the context of Davis' age and the stage of his career is not what an Encyclopaedic reference should be doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not relevant and you reasoning doesn't change it. The 2011/12 started, even there is nothing relevant for this article. What's next, writing that Davis didn't participated at the Wuxi Classic and the World Cup? Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 18:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If one searches Steve davis retirement on the net, there are many refference from Dennis Taylor to expecting davis o retire in the summer, when one goes to the wikipedia page there is nothing for him starting the 2011/12 season, a very poor state of affairs.

Well it's your opinion, but Wikipedia is neither the news not the place for the place for speculation. Taylor speculated, that Davis will announce his retirement, but he didn't. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 19:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it not the place to recode in Encyclopaedic detail Davis' participation in the spoort of Snooker? if so why does it mention nothing regarding season? Has he retired? I'll be putting that Davis entered PTC1 and withdrew from the Australian Open, and I expect it to stay in place until more creditable and significant happenings in the 2011/12 appear, until then these are the most note worthy points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And I have removed them, because they are not needed. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not the last word on what is or is not required, writing that Davis has started the season, is valid, if that means writing he entered PTC1 and withdrew from the qualifier for the Australian Open, then so be it, the latter point is notable in it's own right as Davis withdrawing from events, is not something he did in his hey day. The page should be current, and the entry to the PTC's may be deleted AFTER more significant events have occured, but until then, they serve to illustrate that he has started the season - a valid point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.210.38 (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to add irrelevant information just because more relevant information isn't available currently per WP:NODEADLINE. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lets get this in perspective, the page has random match scores from specific matches, what real relevance has giving a match scrore from seasons agot in comparison to the very vaslid point that Davis has started the 2011/12 season. The points I;ve written have no more or less detaikl of weight than all of the detail given for the last season and season before that, why do you feel that starting the 2011/12 season is not required? If the first event was the Shanghai and he's lost in that, then it would be the same as the entry for the last season, the fact of the matter is that, the first event this season, is the Australian Goldfields open, and instead of losing, he withdrew, why is that no worthy of deletion, whilst a match score and opponent in his shanghai match, amongst others remains. You have no real resaon for deleting Davis' start to the 2011/12 sesaon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.210.38 (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has now info about Davis started the season, but specific info about a PTC first round loss and a withdrawal isn't needed. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 11:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you sugest a first round withdrawal is not needed whilst prvious paragraphs go into match score detail and opponent's names? in the similar events? If his withdrawal from the Australian Open is not needed why do we need to know that "he lost 1–3 against Peter Ebdon in the last 64 of the World Open"? Fact that Daivs is now willing to withdraw from events, is far more important to him than whether he lsot in the last 64 of an event, to whom and by how much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is it important to Steve davis's page that detail such as: "Willie Thorne, who missed a blue off the spot which would have given him a 14–8" on his page, Thorne missing a blue of it's spot is on there, and you delete a point about davis now being at a stage in his career where he withdraws from events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A first round withdrawal is the same as not participating at a tournament, and thus no need to mention it. But it look from this section, that you wont care what I said, so the why the discussion? Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A first round withdrawal is not the same as not participating. It could be said that Davis didn;t participate in the Wuxi Classic, he was however enetered into the Australian Goldfields Open, but withdrew and for any snooker player that is as important as a loss, for he receives no ranking points for that event, you could probably count on one hand the number of times Davis has withdrawn from an event in the last 30 years. I care what you say, for I'm trying to discuss points rather than deleting other peoples edits, which are in line with others already on the article, you have ignored by questions on why, such lines as whille thorne missing a blue off a spot and last 64 match scores and opponents names as in the article and yet you seemed to think Davis receiving no ranking points in his first two events of a season were not important and deleted them, you are not the last word of what and is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You just said it, because he withdrew from the tournament he will receive no ranking points, thus the same as not participating. There is also no information on the Ronnie O'Sullivan article about his first round withdrawal from the 2010 Shanghai Masters and from other PTC, they are not relevant enough. And saying this withdrawal means anything to Davis' snooker career is pure speculation, which is against policy. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How I Play Snooker

The additions of the "How I Play Snooker" is not relevant and the addition of the "and took him through Joe Davis' instructional book How I Play Snooker "page by page, drill by drill"." text doesn't even make sense. Who "took him through"? Previous edits by IPs like [4] are even original research. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not original research. Its the book Steve Davis learned the game from. THe article shows his dad taught him using Joe Davis' `bible` and this is well known in snooker anyway.[5][6][7] Even Davis himself said so in his 1980s autobiography. Davis still uses it as a coaching manual today.[8]

You also need to stop acting like you own this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.153.1 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well lets see: The first isn't reliable. The second only says, that Davis' father introduced snooker to him and gave him this book. The third says Steve Davis and his father studied this book and was a basis for Steve Davis's own technique in 1970's. The fourth has nothing do with this information. What do you think from the following wording:

Davis was introduced to snooker by his father Bill, a keen player, who took him to play at his local working men's club at the age of 12, and gave him Joe Davis' instructional book How I Play Snooker. They studied the book and build Davis' own technique on it in the 1970's.

And I don't own the article, but the source given originally don't support the facts which were claimed. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

yes that wording is fine by me. i dont know why the same information could not have been based on the Independent interview [9] which states 'His father Bill first noticed as much at Plumstead Working Men's Club in south-east London where his son never questioned or complained as he was taken through, page by page, drill by drill, How I Play Snooker by Joe Davis; no relation, save in spirit.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.147.235 (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added the new wording to the article, as the IP agrees it. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

one of four people to of compiled 300 centuries

5 Peter Ebdon became the fifth last season reference Peter Ebdons page QueenAlexandria 20:14 23/07/12 utc —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done by BlueFire10 (talk · contribs) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 06:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicknames

I have followed Davis's career for many years and never heard him referred to as Steve 'Stumble' Davis or the 'Romford Robot'. Can anyone name a source for these?