Wikipedia:Peer review/Alex Higgins/archive1

Alex Higgins

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i want that the article reach GA status.

Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Armbrust: Peer review is backlogged at the moment, which could mean delays of up to two weeks before articles can be reviewed. You can help, by choosing one of the articles in the backlog, and reviewing it. Please consider doing this, so that delays are minimised. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Giants2008 comments – This is not the easiest type of review for me to do, both because I know nothing about snooker and because I am much more familiar with FA/FL criteria than GA. However, I do have some suggestions that should improve the article's chances at a potential GAN:

The first thing I notice is that the lead is a little thin, and the paragraphs are quite short. Consider merging a couple of the current paras and adding some content; trying to ensure that all sections have some representation is a good way of accomplishing this.
Some uncited parts of the article will need to be dealt with before a nomination will have a chance to succeed. For instance, most of the World titles sub-section has no sources; neither does a quote by Clive Everton in Legacy.
Most of the sources look quite reasonable, but I see a couple that are problematic. First, references 33 and 41 are to YouTube, which is not usually considered a reliable source, not to mention the possibility of copyright infringement of the videos. Also, I see reference 46 goes to a blog. Is the author a journalist or snooker expert. If not, this likely isn't reliable either.
Several references are missing items like dates of publication and access dates, which should be provided. Also, would it be possible to get a page number for reference 25 (the Robert Bryne book)?
"Higgins is often credited to have brought the game of snooker to a wider audience and contributing to its peak in the eighties." Feels a little awkward upon reading it. Try switching "contributing" to "contributed" to fix it.
Early life: "However, he never made the title...". I don't understand this. Is being a jockey a title in England, or was there some event he wanted to win and never did? I have a feeling I'm losing something in translation; is this phrase common in Britain?
The section on his career feels very short. There's a paragraph on the world championships, with a longer Post-retirement section. Isn't there anything else that can be added, or sources to add with? For example, why was he disciplined in 1982–83? I find it odd that the section on his personal life is longer than the section on his career.
Post retirement: "these comebacks ending in a first-round defeat by Garry Hardiman and Joe Delaney respectively." Since there were two losses, I think "in first round defeats" would be better grammar.
In different sections, I see a few random formatting items of note, like out-of-order references (lead and Illness and death), references before punctuation (Outside snooker and Illness and death) and a space before references (Post retirement). I'm not sure whether or not GAN reviewers consider these things when looking at articles, but it wouldn't hurt to do them beforehand and leave the article in the best shape possible. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are a few disambiguation links as indicated by the checker in the toolbox; it would be nice to see these sorted out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 Comments:

Four consecutive sentences in lead start with "Higgins", the next 2 with "He".
Lead needs expanding to take account of some more of his life: it should be a brief biography itself. I don't think it gives a flavour of the man.
Throughout the article, lots of sentences start with "he" which makes the article a bit hard to read. Also, in several places, sentences could be merged; for example, ""He turned professional at the age of 22, winning the World Snooker Championship at his first attempt in 1972 against John Spencer. The match was won with a 37–32 scoreline.[14] Higgins, at 23, was the youngest winner of the title until Stephen Hendry's 1990 victory at the age of 21" could be changed to "Turning professional at the age of 22, Higgins won the Snooker World Championship at the first attempt in 1972, beating John Spencer 37-32. Aged 23, he remained the youngest winner of the title until the 21 year old Stephen Hendry in 1990."
All the career stuff should really go in the same section rather than bits being spread out all over the article.
The detail in the article is very uneven. Early life is too detailed, with information about his eating habits, but in World Titles, his entire career is covered in one paragraph, with no mention of his other wins, or his ups and downs as a player. Then, Post retirement gives lots of details of just a couple of tournaments. As far as possible, you should detail at least his tournament wins or runner up spots. Personally, I might be inclined to run through his results, for the World Championship at the least, although this may make it a little long. Certainly, a paragraph on each of his seasons is needed to make the article comprehensive, instead of a list of his wins at the end.
You need to give some references for the description of his playing style. The stuff about his volatile personality, bans and 1990 stuff, really belongs in the previous section, which should chronologically detail his career.
This is an article about a very important figure in snooker and I'm not sure it captures his importance or the effect he had on audiences. He is credited (rightly or wrongly) with popularising the sport and leading to its boom in the 80s. The article should have more on this.
Did the throat cancer actually kill him or was it his general poor health as a result of the cancer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably worth obtaining some of the books published about him and use those as they're likely to be more detailed. Or wait for one updated with his death. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]