Talk:2024 Tour Championship/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 21:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: BarntToust (talk · contribs) 23:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Lee Vilenski, do have to ask about something. In the notes, "For the 1st round match between Gary Wilson and Mark Selby, the source (WST) frame score data is incorrect. For the last (18th) frame WST has 52(52)‍–‍30. It was actually 105(105)‍–‍30." as well as "For the final match between Mark Williams and Ronnie O'Sullivan, the source (WST) frame score data is incorrect. For the last (15th) frame WST has 47‍–‍19. It was actually 50‍–‍19." - these are currently not verified by any source. If this is true, and if World Snooker Tour can't get their own match score right, that is very concerning? Should I be concerned? I'd appreciate some insight on this matter. Barnt Toust 23:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the actual scoring mechanism of the governing body isn't always correct. Basically, how the scoring works is that the referees have a controller in their pockets and update the score with those.

Their own scoring is quite often a lot better than this, but we can only really note down where there is contradictions. In terms of frame scores, that doesn't actually change the overall score of a match, nor the content of Wikipedia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, we don't usually link these at all normally, so I'm happy to remove. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski, if you can find a YouTube video or something like that from a perennial source of the final moments of a match and timestamp it where it shows the score, that's a-ok by me. If not, then I'd concur with removing it. Barnt Toust 15:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you think you can find anything, you might check on ITV's channels and see if they've got clip uploads. Barnt Toust 16:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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