Talk:Jean Balukas/Comments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image:Chalk stub.png This internal Wikipedia page is part of WikiProject Cue sports, a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of pool, carom billiards and other cue sports. If you would like to participate, you can edit the content page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Initial comments: Some pre-GA comments. Quite well-developed, and well-sourced, basically just needs some twiddles:

  • I'm a little concerned with "Balukas was widely acknowledged as the sole candidate for greatest female player ever", multiple sources or not. The sources arguably make this not a case of WP:WEASEL, but because the sources don't say precisely what the article does, but are being interpreted to essentially mean that, in combination, this likely qualifies as "novel synthesis" under WP:NOR (I've argued strongly that this is the case with similar WP:PEACOCK language such as at Steve Davis among other snooker bios.)
  • '"breathtaking" in its scope' [opinion needs balancing] - just because someone somewhere can be quoted saying this doesn't mean it's encyclopedic to do so. Just using "dominated" (without "utterly") already gets the point across. And the piece may already be overquoting the NYT.
  • "named Player of the Year five times" [citation needed] / [clarify] - by whom? BCA? Billiards Digest?
  • Intro is too long for article of this length. Suggest compressing by 50%.
  • All the ages may need to be converted to words instead of numerals; I forget what WP:MOSNUM says about that. It doesn't; raised issue on its talk page.
  • The "She did not agree at the time" paragraph under the dress code section needs to have much of its material moved to the preceeding playing-with-the-guys section, since that's what the material is about, incl. McCready, etc.
  • A more up-to-date photo might be obtainable by writing to her; we know where her pool hall is...
  • Style: May be a little bit too magaziney, with too many direct quotations, especially toward the end.

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)