From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2019 World Cup (snooker) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles good article criteria . If you can improve it further, please do so . If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess .2019 World Cup (snooker) is part of the 2019–20 snooker season seriesgood 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 Date Process Result October 4, 2020 Good article nominee Listed October 13, 2022 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Snooker Wikipedia:WikiProject Snooker Template:WikiProject Snooker Snooker articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale .
This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 World Cup (snooker)/GA1 . The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs ) 05:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Is it well written ?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections , layout , words to watch , fiction , and list incorporation :
Is it verifiable no original research ?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline :
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources , including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged , and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines :
C. It contains no original research :
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism :
Is it broad in its coverage ?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style ):
Is it neutral It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable ?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images A. Images are tagged with their copyright status , and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content :
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions :
Overall :
Pass or Fail: "The World cup was split into a group stage, and a knockout stage." --> comma not necessary after "stage"
"During knockout stage, matches were played as best-of-seven-frames." --> During "the" knockout. Add "the"
"In the decider Jack Lisowski beat Thepchaiya" --> comma after "decider"
Add author's name in citations. (Example- author name not mentioned in [13]).
The date format in citations aren't uniform. (Example- some have "2019-06-17", some "27 September 2020". I will suggest changing them to the 27 September 2020 format).
If possible an image for infobox.
❯❯❯ S A H A 20:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] ArnabSaha , thanks for the review, I've covered the above points. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs ) 20:36, 4 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] ❯❯❯ S A H A 20:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] 
