Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Phil Taylor/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phil Taylor[edit]

Toolbox
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 have worked very hard on improving this article over a month and wan some more feedback on it so I can get it to GA or even FA status. I feel it is near to GA so I want to be able to get it to GA with the reviews. I don't care how much critism I get, at least it will help me improve it more.

One section I think needs close attention is 'Recent form', another is 'Outside darts'

Thanks, Mr.Kennedy1 talk 18:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mr.Kennedy1, it's big but I'll gave a go. I generally use a standard procedure that I developed for GA reviews:

  • Coverage, in other words what to include / exclude per WP:WIAGA.
  • Structure. To group aspects of the article to other and often to order that so that (sub-)sections that provide information precede those that use that information.
  • (Sub-)sections, looking at e.g. prose and citations.
  • Check for broken links and DAB pages - see User:Philcha#Tools.
  • Check the lead last, when no further changes are expected in the main text.
A GA reviewer will expect that you will do all this before the reviewer, as a review is quality control, not an article improvement service.
As a nominator does not know when a GA review may be start, it may be a time when the nominator is busy for other things. I make an allowance for RL if the nominator requests this at the start of the review.
If you disagree with any my comments, please say so - I'm not infallible.

Please don't respond until I ask - in such long article I'm very likely to have second thoughts at several points. --Philcha (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage from Philcha[edit]

  • (comment only) No obvious gaps at the top level, when I check each section I'll look at Coverage in the section.
  • Need to check Biographies of living persons as soon as possible, as this may force us to drop some content. At present I think "Biographies of living persons" is quite clear, but we both must check through the article. --Philcha (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure from Philcha[edit]

Early career from Philcha[edit]

Split in darts from Philcha[edit]

PDC career from Philcha[edit]

Outside darts from Philcha[edit]

What happens next[edit]

In a real GA review, the reviewer would probably conclude that there already too defects of in each of: missing or faulty citations; prose, including clumsy writing, superfluous text. The reviewer would probably "put the artice on hold" for a week to fix all defects, not just those the reviewer mentioned - and the result would be a "fail". If you like ( :-P ) I'll wait a week and see how it looks. --Philcha (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i'll notify you via your talk page when I think I have the defects fixed. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 18:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Belovedfreak

I've had a glance through Philcha's suggestions, so I will try not to duplicate or contradict anything there. I'll go through and make suggestions by section. Feel free to deal with Philcha's first or whatever. Not everything I mention will be directly applicable to GA, but may just be a general improvement.

throughout

  • This article has a lot of numbers, and would benefit from some consistency. In general, per MOS:NUMBER, numbers under ten are spelled out as words, while numbers over ten are digits. It's a bit more complicated than that though, and in this article you have a lot of scores, for example. WP:ORDINAL gives some good examples of how to write numbers. One area you could be more consistent is where you have "9 dart finish" and "nine dart finish", both used throughout.
  • Citations go after punctuation, not before, and with no space in between. For example his way to the final,1 not his way to the final1, or his way to the final, 1

Infobox

  • Just a thought, but I'm wondering if the photo could be cropped a bit better. I realise it's from a larger group photo, but it might be better as just head and shoulders.
  • Song titles should be in quotes ("The Power" by Snap!)
  • Ranges of numbers should be separated by en dashes rather than hyphens. (see WP:ENDASH).
  • The "other achievements" list has a mix of tenses eg. "Achieves his first televised...", "Scored world record..."

Lead

  • Ultimately, the lead will need to be a bit longer, covering all the main points of the article (WP:LEAD)
  • "Nicknamed "The Power"..."; this doesn't need to be italicised, you already have it in quotes
  • I don't know much about Phil Taylor, but it's clear that he's had a successful career. However, the lead comes across as maybe a bit too positive. I'm not saying you need to dredge up something negative to include, but make sure it's as balanced and neutral as it can be.

Early career

  • Watch out for WP:OVERLINKING; don't add wikilinks to common words (like unemployment) that won't add any further context to this article
  • "he was brought to the attention of Eric Bristow, one of the most popular and well known figures in the game" - the fact that Bristow was one of the most popular & well known figures needs citing
  • Watch out for redundancy in the prose, or using words that aren't needed. For example, "Bristow decided to loan Taylor £10,000" could simply be Bristow loaned Taylor £10,000
  • "He lists the win as the favourite of his career." - this could probably be worded slightly better; one thing doesn't make a list.

Split in darts

  • "Professional Darts Corporation" can be linked at this point
  • "From it's peak..." → From its peak (no apostrophe when its is possessive)

PDC career

  • Is there any more detail on his career between 1994 and 2003, other that he was unbeaten?
  • You have a mixture (throughout) of "Barneveld" and "van Barneveld"; this should be consistent
  • "The 2007 final saw a match regarded as one of the best in history, between Taylor and Raymond van Barneveld, in which the game was tied at 6–6 in sets and Barneveld had a 2–1 lead in legs, Barneveld missed 4 darts for the World Championship and then Taylor went on to win the leg which tied the set at 2–2, the set had to be won by 2 clear legs unless it gets to 5–5 which would result in a sudden death leg which it did and Barneveld won the leg so he won his 5th World Championship (4 BDO, 1 PDC)" - this is a really long, unwieldy sentence that's not easy to read. Also, does the source cited support that the match is regarded as the best? (I haven't checked) Who exactly regards it as the best? Fans? Commentators? Players?
  • "the first PDC world championship which didn't feature Taylor" → the first PDC world championship which did not feature Taylor (don't use contractions (like didn't, don't, wouldn't) unless they're in direct quotes
  • "But Taylor came back the following year..." - not a good way to start a sentence
  • "by battering his old adversary" - this is a bit informal. I presume he didn't literally batter him!
  • "in a one-hour challenge dubbed "The Match of the Century"" - who dubbed it the Match of the Century? Also, that needs citing.

Form

  • "This was unique for Taylor, who had not lost two major events in a row in 13 years." - if he's done it before, then it's not unique. Perhaps This was unusual for Taylor, who had not lost two major events in a row in 13 years.
  • "3 defeats in his first four matches" - this is a good example of where numbers could be made more consistent.

Outside darts

  • "His popularity among darts fans has led to increasing business opportunities, such as writing his autobiography.." - this is not very neutral. It's probably fair to say that most people who have articles on Wikipeida because of their sporting or entertainment careers have fans, and are popular with their fans. A good many of them go on to write autobiographies. It's ok to mention his autobiography, but I don't think you need to frame it in those terms.
  • "Presumably a reference to being cautious with money..." - this is WP:OR really, we're not supposed to be presuming anything. I'm also not sure that this needs mentioning at all, it's fairly trivial.

References

  • I've not checked out all your sources but it might be worth asking someone to, perhaps from a sports wikiproject. I'm not familiar with a lot of the ones used so don't know how reliable they are. You need to make sure that they all are though. Just one example at random: Mindthegap.tv - what makes that a reliable source?

On the whole, I think the article's getting there. I think the main issues are more citations (which you're aware of), and tightening up the prose and style. Good luck with it, --BelovedFreak 11:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Belovedfreak, thanks for the comments. But guess what, I think there is room for different views on 3 points:

  • I think the MOS issues dependent on how far Mr.Kennedy1 wants to take article. If he wants to go for FA eventually, then he should get accustomed to the whole MOS. But if Mr.Kennedy1 only wants to go to GA, Wikipedia:WIAGA uses a very strict subset of MOS and any more would be a waste of time. In particular, hyphens are OK for GA. --Philcha (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Presumably a reference to being cautious with money", I agree that "Presumably a reference to" is weak. But the BBC said that commentator Sid Waddell said "Taylor wouldn't give you the dripping off his bacon sandwich." That has 2 points: it's part of Taylor being ahead his competitors in keeping himself in the best possible shape; and it's funny - in general I'm against "superfluous" text, but that makes this joke even better. --Philcha (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "the lead comes across as maybe a bit too positive" and corresponding main text, Taylor's superiority really is overwhelming. van Barneveld is regarded as the 2nd best player ever, and Taylor's record against van Barneveld is summarised at Phil_Taylor#van_Barneveld. --Philcha (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How it looks to a GA reviewer[edit]

Hi, Mr.Kennedy1, here I put on my GA reviewer's hat. It's always the nominator's responsibility to get the article 100% right before the start of the review. I'm afraid there enough serious faults that the reviewer would identify some of them and then put the article on hold for a week:

  • No citations in:
    "Between jobs there were spells of unemployment ... could practise full-time and enter low-level tournaments" in section "Early career".
     Done - Removed as there were no refs anywhere. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In "2006" there's a very easy way to get rid of the [citation needed] tag.
     Done - No refs so removed sentences. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "He ended 2007 without holding any of the five Sky televised major trophies for the first time since the PDC started in 1994" in section "2007" has a [citation needed] tag.
     Done - Couldn't find one so rewrote whole paragraph. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 19:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No citations at all in section "2008".
    No citations in most paragraphs in section "2009".
    No citations at all in section "2010".
    You need to check the whole article. --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose:
    Section " Early career" still has "Taylor's first job was making ceramic toilet roll handles for which he earned no more than £52 a week" --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In section "PDC career", "The 2007 final saw a match regarded as one of the best in history ... won his 5th World Championship (4 BDO, 1 PDC)" is monster sentence. I'd cut the play details "Barneveld missed 4 darts for the World Championship and then Taylor went on to win the leg which tied the set at 2–2, the set had to be won by 2 clear legs unless it gets to 5–5 which would result in a sudden death leg which it did and Barneveld won the leg" --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In section "PDC career", "... a shocking turn of events saw ..." is pure sensationalism and you should cut it. --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In section "2006", "This was unique for Taylor, who had not lost two major events in a row in 13 years", "unique" is exaggeration and possibly false, if Taylor lost 2 majors in a row 13 years ago, --Philcha (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No period in "I would probably put this one as the best" in section "2007". Wikipedia:WIAGA includes grammar and spelling as well as smooth, clear prose. --Philcha (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't continue. An illness appears to hit me about 5:00 and has left me chilly, weak and sleeping for most of the time since then. --Philcha (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please copy User:Philcha#Tools, I think you'll find them useful. --Philcha (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Phil_Taylor/archive1&oldid=1049154220"