Login
Login

Talk:Tessa Davidson/GA1

GA review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Tessa Davidson/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Tessa Davidson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|BennyOnTheLoose}} 19:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rodney Baggins (talk · contribs) 17:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

class="wikitable" style="width: 100%; width:50em"
height=50 | GA review
{{small|(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)}}
#It is reasonably well written.

  1. :a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|pass|{{{1a}}}}}
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|pass|{{{1b}}}}}
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
  3. :a (references): {{GAList/check|pass|{{{2a}}}}}
    b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|pass|{{{2b}}}}}
    c (OR): {{GAList/check|pass|{{{2c}}}}}
    d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|pass|{{{2d}}}}}
  4. It is broad in its coverage.
  5. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|pass|{{{3a}}}}}
    b (focused): {{GAList/check|pass|{{{3b}}}}}
  6. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  7. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|pass|{{{4}}}}}
  8. It is stable.
  9. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|pass|{{{5}}}}}
  10. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
  11. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|pass|{{{6a}}}}}
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|pass|{{{6b}}}}}
style="text-align:center;" |

Overall:

Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|pass|{{{7}}}}}

height=30|15px · 15px · 15px · 15px

Notes:

  • 1. Well-written: I've made some slight improvements to prose + I'll add some specific queries below.
  • 2. Verifiable with no OR: I'm still working on this. Will add queries below.
  • 3. Broad in coverage: It's as broad as it needs to be given the limitations of Davidson's career and notability.
  • 6. Illustrated: As there's only one image, you could make it a bit bigger using image_size param in infobox (e.g. image_size = 250) and possibly a caption to say when/where it was?

Rodney Baggins .talk. 08:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|BennyOnTheLoose}} I feel that this article does meet the GA criteria now, but I wanted to check a few things with you first.

  • Infobox says she was pro in "1992–93" which at first sight looks like a year range, but that would need to be "1992–1993" per MOS:YEARRANGE. Of course we're talking about the 1992–93 season rather than a year range, so would it be OK to put "1992–93 season"?

:*Added the word, and a link. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  • At the end of lead section, it says "As of September 2024, she was ranked ninth in the women's rankings,[2] as well as first in the women's seniors rankings.[3]" but that is not covered in the main Bio section, which ends with "She gained the top place in the women's seniors rankings after the Winchester Women's Open in 2022.[41]" but doesn't mention 2023 or 2024. Could maybe do with an update to match lead coverage?

:*Added, with an update to April 2025. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  • The two Banbury Guardian articles say she's from Adderbury (which is about 3 miles from Banbury) – worth changing or stick with Banbury? Also, bear in mind that the Banbury Guardian is a tabloid.

:*There are 40+ matches on Newspapers.com for Davidson's name and Banbury, but none for her name and Adderbury. There are also two Daily Telegraph articles from 1991 saying that she is from Bodicote. I think the balance of sources supports Banbury. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  • "Later in 1991, Davidson made a break of 135 at the British Open" – should this be called the WWS British Open to differentiate it from the British Open on the main pro tour (which is mentioned lower down)?

:*Amended to "British Women's Open" as this is the term used elsewhere (and for more recent editions on on WPBSA SnookerScores) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  • "As of 1989 she was married to Mark." – That was a long time ago, so are we to assume that 35 years later she is still married to the same person? It might not even be worth mentioning this to be honest. "Her husband" is mentioned higher up and giving his name doesn't really add anything here.

:*Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  • "In about 2022, she was awarded a coaching scholarship by the WPBSA." – I think it's safe to say "In 2022" rather than "In about 2022" because the actual course/exam happened in summer 2022 according to the source.
  • :Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • You might want to use this link for ref.24. https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/sporting-digest-snooker-1086826.html
  • :Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Book cite ref 37. needs a page number.
  • :Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Blanket use of ref.38 to verify scores in table doesn't really work because the source only says what stage she got to in each tournament but opponents/scores are not given. You have to open up the individual tournament pages for each result. Please can you cite these individually instead? E.g. refs 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35 could be used in the table for a start. Ref.38 is dead anyway (see below).

:*Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

  • 2nd EL is dead (same as inline citation ref.38) – you could update it to [https://snookerscores.net/player/tessa-davidson-2 this new version].

:*Updated. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Pending your feedback on the above items, I can give the article an overall pass. As far as the criteria go, it's good. I have noticed a few other things that "would be nice" but they don't affect the GAN, so maybe I'll post them on the Talk page afterwards FYI. Rodney Baggins .talk. 18:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi {{u|Rodney Baggins}}, many thanks for the review and apologies for the delay in replying. If you don't mind, I'm happy to keep the review open while I go through those points. There's a full page interview with Davidson in the new Snooker Scene which arrived today and there may be one or two minor additions based on that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi {{u|Rodney Baggins}}, apologies again for the delay. I think I've addressed all of your points above. I will keep an eye on the talk page for any further improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks Benny. I'll put further comments on Talk page in due course. I take it the full page interview with Davidson in the new Snooker Scene didn't throw up anything new for this article? Rodney Baggins .talk. 18:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)