Jump to content

Talk:2020 Welsh Open (snooker)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2020 Welsh Open (snooker) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star2020 Welsh Open (snooker) is part of the 2019–20 snooker season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 10, 2021Good article nomineeListed
October 13, 2022Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Referees

[edit]

Surely you would want the page to have as much info as possible. Including Referees lists is a unique section which is not prominent elsewhere. The current pages don’t really say anything that can’t be found elsewhere. This is an opportunity to further increase the info of tournaments. I made these records after watching hours of snooker, why would I make up who the referees are? This is 100% accurate. Like I say this is an addition not a change. You should look positively at this. I don’t want to interfere with all your other work, don’t worry about that haha, I just think this is a good way to include unique info.

All 16 referees in my records are also listed on the matches on the cuetracker website. I can’t attach a link to reference for some reason. All my records of referees match with the ones on there so surely that backs up my original research.


I swear on my life all info is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:AF2E:C600:F0C2:C3FE:B71D:5166 (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Context, this addition. The problem is, you've fundamentally misunderstood what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a place for all information, and the whole point is that it is information that other reliable sources say. What you have, is a lot of original research, which isn't what we do here. We summarise what reliable sources say about the subject. The reason why you can't link to cuetracker is that the reliability is so poor we have blacklisted links to it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We always need to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles need to have sufficient information to hopefully provide what most readers are interested in. Highly detailed information, like a full list of referees or frame scores for every match, is something for the snooker stats websites like cuetracker, not for us. We have a long-standing system of recording the referee of the final and my own view is that this is about right for us, since refereeing a final is seen as something of an honour and is more widely reported eg https://wst.tv/corporate/referees/triple-crown-final-referees/. Nigej (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2020 Welsh Open (snooker)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 06:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shall review for the July 2021 GAN Backlog Drive MWright96 (talk) 06:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): 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):
  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:

Infobox

[edit]
  • The three flagicons should be replaced by the flagathlete templates as has been done in the main draw section

Lead

[edit]

Format

[edit]

Prize fund

[edit]

Summary

[edit]

Qualifying round

[edit]

References

[edit]
  • References 5 to 7, 13 and 15 to 21 are missing their publication dates
  • The titles for References 7 and 13 need updating
  • The quote at the end of Reference 8 is unneeded
  • References 16 and 21 are missing their respective authors
  • The publisher of Reference 23 should be in the work= field

Shall put the review on hold to allow the nominator to address or query the points raised above MWright96 (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]