Talk:Darts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Darts (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Darts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Darts-related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

measurements[edit]

Is there a Wikipedia policy that requires metric equivalents for measurements? Sticking (1.2345 metres) after everything looks very ugly to me, and detracts particularly from a description of the rules of darts, a non-metric game if ever there was one. --Pete

I think it is general courtesy for the global audience. I like having both systems show, as I prefer metric in some situations and imperial in other.
Thryduulf 01:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There actually seems to be a policy that all measures should be in both imperial and metric, (at least rough approximations). Check out the guidelines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Style_for_numbers.2C_weights.2C_and_measures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Measurements_Debate

I personally don't see why 99.5% of the world should pander to the needs of a single country that stubbornly refuses to evolve and clings to its ancient roots, but what the heck. — JIP | Talk 10:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Amen. And while we're at it we should dump that archaic metric system, with it's "1 10 millionth the distance from equator to pole" (a measurement that they messed up anyway), and base all measurements on light-nanoseconds. And toss that whole base 10 thing, it's so unfactorable--base 12 or base 16 make far more sense. Maybe a light-nanosecond split into 12 smaller units... scot 15:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I was expecting this sort of reply. If I had said "I personally don't see why 99.5% of the world won't abandon the strange, incomprehensible, completely alien metric system and start using traditional units like decent, god-fearing Americans", then I would have had full agreement and support. But when I try to present a metric viewpoint, I get a sarcastic and condescending reply. — JIP | Talk 10:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, since you were obviously expecting this sort of reply (99.5%, eh?), I was obligated to produce it, no? However, since you object to the chauvinistic reply which you admittedly solicitied...
This article is about darts, a game invented by the English, who at the time still predominantly used English units. The dartboard is NOT 1.73, or even 1.7272... meters from the floor, it IS 5 feet 8 inches, by definition. Recommended max mass for a soft tip dart is defined as 18 grams, so that would use grams as the primary measure--however as that's only a recommendation, not a rule, it's not in the article. An American football field is 100 yards, the hull speed of a Sunfish sailboat is 5 nautical miles per hour, and Noah's ark was 300 cubits long. If you wish to follow these with metric, English, or ancient Chinese units, that is fine, but putting metric units first is just plain wrong, because those things aren't defined in metric units. In the case of darts, football, and Noah's ark, those things are defined with a specific unit, so that unit should take precedence. In the case of the sailboat, nautical miles are the logical unit for use in navigation, since a nautical mile is defined as one minute of arc at the surface of the earth--this makes conversion from angular to distance measure trivial.
Off topic and destined for immediate removal, but I can't help it: "With what units do you measure the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?" Would you use meters per second for African swallows and miles per hour for European swallows? LastCallAgain (talk) 06:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
If this was about American Football you would use yards. thats the unit used in the game, officially. In darts its feet and inches. This is how it would be discussed anywhere in the world. Vinithehat (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
And, just because it fits so well, a quote that popped up in a discussion in physics class:
Q: "How many nanometers from the Earth's sun to Alpha Centauri?"
A: "You don't measure the distance to Alpha Centarui in nanometers."
scot 15:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The official throwing distance is different now as far as i know, they made it slightly shorter, i forget the measurment but it does need updating. T1Cybernetic (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The measurements suggested for the length of the throw and height of the board need review. Quote: " An alternate means of measuring the distance from the bullseye to the far side of the oche or throwing line. It is 93.249 inches inches from the rear of the oche to a plumb line hanging (right angle) from the bulls eye. 93.249 is calculated using Pythagorean Theorem formula of a2 + b2 = c2."

First, there is a confusing, incomplete sentence. Second, Pythagoras' theorem (as mentioned here) would not apply. You cannot use a^2 + b^2 = c^2 if you only bother measuring a^2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.149.87 (talk) 21:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Darts dimensions. With all this fuss on the use of the imperial and/or metric system nobody notices that the boarddimensions are incomplete. What is the target area of the board? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacksknife (talkcontribs) 12:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Reorganisation[edit]

I've had a bit of a restructure and reorganisation. I think the order of the sections is better than it was previously, but I'm not convinced I've got everything right yet - so go ahead and improve it! Thryduulf 01:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

number arangement[edit]

We could do with a paragraph on why the numbers are arranged the way they are. I can't remember whether it is a mathematical sequence/formula or not. I'm sure I've heard both that its to do with the 199.5 degree (or whatever it is) that is important in sunflowers, etc; and that they were just manually arranged so high numbers were kept apart. Which is correct? Thryduulf 01:54, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


What about Dart boards, where the score gradually gets higher, the closer you get to the center(1,2,3... 10)?

That'd be a target, not a dartboard. Targets are designed to measure accuracy; everyone aims at the center, and if you miss the 10 ring by a little, you are only penalized a little--miss by a lot, get penalized a lot. The dartboard, however, is designed to make you gamble on your aim. To hit a 20 on a dartboard, you risk missing and hitting a 1 or 5. If your aim isn't as good, then a 14 is a safer bet; if you have a 50% chance of being off by one, you get a 9 or 11. Expected return for the 50% chance of miss is 11.5 points for the 20, and 12 for the 14. Also, the highest numbers (20, 19, 18, 17) are near top and bottom of the board, which makes their double and triple spaces wide and short, which is harder to hit than the doubles and triples on the sides spaces, which are narrow but tall. Vertical dispersion about the point of aim is generally greater than horizontal, in my experience, as an error in aim or velocity will effect vertical position, while horizontal is only impacted by aim. When you add the constraints of needing to "double out", and hit exactly 301, etc., there is actually a lot of strategy to darts, and that strategy changes depending on how accurate you are. scot 22:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the numbers are arraged that way just to keep large numbers away from each other, so it more a game of skill rather than luck.

  • The article doesn't even mention the standard arrangement of numbers, at the moment. 87.194.252.72 (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Vocabulary[edit]

I've heard the word "corking" used with reference to darts. If the cork is the center of the dartboard, then what is "corking"? --LostLeviathan 22:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dartboards are made of cork (or at least they used to be, I dunno if they have sythetic stuff or not these days), so its probably a reference to that. My first guess is that it is when your dart bounces back out, but as this is due to hitting the wire it would be rather illogical though. Thryduulf 22:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


It is the very center of the dartboard (the bullseye) that was often made of cork. In many dart games, the decision of who gets to throw first is determined by each player throwing a single dart at the cork, the closest to the center goes first. The term "corking" refers to this practice of shooting for the cork. Now, who gets to shoot at the cork first is often detemined by a coin flip. Interesting, at least to us dart players, is the term that means loser of the last game goes first in the next (without corking). The term for this is "mugs away". [User: Robihood] 14:52, 15 Dec 2005

This article refers to the 3x score sections as being 'triple' but I would have thought commonly these are refered to as 'treble' Paul45 (talk) 10:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the use of "treble" or "triple " is simply a dialect issue. Brits and english-speaking Europeans say "treble," while Americans say "triple." Kind of like spelling "organisation" with a 'z'. LastCallAgain (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

combinations[edit]

I don't think 19! is an accurate representation of how many different boards there are. Since the board is cyclical, the unique combinations are much fewer. Combinatorics covers this, but my math memory is weak as to the specific method. Kellen T 18:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's actually going to be 20!. Assume we start with 1 and go to 20; you have 20 possibilities for the 1, then you have 19 possibilities for 2, 18 for 3, and so on, which gives you 20 * 19 * 18 ... for 20! possible board layouts. Now given that the board is laid out so that higher numbers tend to be bracketed by lower numbers (to increase the penalty for missing), that does add a loose constraint which would greatly reduce the number of "reasonable" boards, but it's since the constraint is a loose one, it's impossible to put a count on the number of boards so constrained. scot 19:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You missed my point. Say we only had 5 numbers. Since the board is round, a board which goes: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is exactly the same as a board which goes 2, 3, 4, 5, 1. Read about combinatorics. The actual number of unique board layouts is much smaller than 20! Kellen T 13:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
That depends on how you define "unique". If I hang a board with the 19 up, rather than the 20, is that unique? It could be argued that since the standard board requires the 20 up, then just re-hanging the standard board gets you 20 different combinations--certainly it would impact the player's strategy. I tend to have a greater vertical dispersion, so I favor spaces that are higher than wide; rotating the board 90 degrees would let me shoot at the 20 and 19. Ditto for mirror images of the standard board, which would give you double the ways to hang it, though that would have minimal strategic impact, unless a player has a diagonal dispersion. Since there are 20 things we can arrange, that means that there are 20! unconstrained combinations. Requiring that 20 face up drops that to 19!, since the 20 is no longer a variable and that leaves 19 numbers to place. scot 15:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously it depends upon how you define unique. User:Mdf's edits have made the article wording specific and correct. My comment was in relation to the previous wording which neglected to specify the constraints you bring up, and which ignored rotational symmetry, but asserted that there were 19! or 20! possible boards. Kellen T 15:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BDO vs. PDC[edit]

"It is generally accepted that PDC tournaments usually have a higher standard than those by the BDO. To win a PDC tournament, an average per three darts of over 100 is expected, whereas an average in the low 90's could win you a BDO tournament."

While this is sort of true, I think it needs some kind of backup - perhaps some statistics from the respective World Championships? I'm not sured it's phrased very well at the moment. Jono 09:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Telescoping shot rule[edit]

I'm yanking this:

  • Hitting the shaft of one of your previous darts immediately makes you the winner of the game, but only if the second dart remains attached. This has never ocurred in an international league before. The WDF (World Darts Federation) has agreed to name this throw after the first person who will throw this in a recorded match.

The WDF rules on scoring (http://www.dartswdf.com/wdf_rules_regs/WDF-TournamentPlayingRules.pdf, section 3) state:

3.02 A dart shall only score if the point remains in or touches the face of the dartboard, within the outer double wire, until after the throw has been completed, and the score has been called and recorded on the scoreboard.

No mention of hitting a prior dart is made (which ain't all that hard, I'm a pretty mediocre player and I've split shafts before). If verification of this claim can be made, then it can be put back in, but it seems rather unlikely to me. scot 19:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I play in the Minuteman Dart League (ADO/WDF Member) in Boston, Massachusetts, and I'm quite familiar with scoring convention. As far as I know and in my experience, convention definitely follows the rulebook on this one. Pulling a "Robin Hood", as we call it, looks pretty cool, but beyond that is worth nothing. Good call. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 16:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Also really hoses your shafts, even with soft tip darts. That's what made me give up on the cheap plastic shafts and go with aluminum; those are much tougher, and even if you do bend them (which I have only done once) they can be bent back. The plastic ones split down to the front of the flight, and break off. scot 16:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

sport[edit]

(the first to officially recognize darts as a sport - March 25, 2005 ),

Archery is an Olympics sport so is there any suggestions that, as the American put in beach volleyball as an Olympic sport, that darts should be included in the London Olympics? If so would alcohol count as a sport enhancing drug? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Who knows? But with or without booze, Darts should be included either way! 74.65.39.59 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Counting dartboards[edit]

The article claimed 20! different dartboards when assessing them for maximizing the penalty for missing a shot. However, there will be a rotational symmetry, so the number of distinct boards is actually 19!. I've made the tweak, and added a citation. mdf 20:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Arguably the standard layout can yield 20 different boards by rotating, and they will result in slightly different scores for most people. I think the and 20, 19, 18, and 17 are oriented like they are to keep the vertical size of the double and triple spaces small, as most players I've seen (admittedly ameteurs) seem to have a greater vertical than horizontal dispersion. However it is probably obvious enough that each board would have 19 other ways to hang, so I think that can be left unsaid. scot 15:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What's FSN?[edit]

"On FSN broadcasts in the United States, the logos for Ladbrokes are pixelized out and digitally obscured, along with any audible references to Ladbrokes, due to American laws and policies against online gambling."

What's FSN? I did a google search and think it might be Fox Sports Net. Could someone confirm this or correct me if i'm wrong. 80.189.229.194 15:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cracks/Lines in Dartboard[edit]

Why are they there - is it just a historical thing?

Are you referring to the cracks in the paint on the surface of the board? Cork, like any other wood, expands and contracts, and end-grain surfaces espeically tend to "check", or crack the surface finish, as the wood expands and contracts with changing humidity. scot 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Decent modern dartboards are made out of sisal (not cork). The long fibres are bundled into ropelike sections and usually wrapped with paper before being stacked, sliced, bound with a steel hoop and glued to a wood-fibre backboard. The "lines" are the wrapping seen end on.

Player Links - wrong[edit]

Many of the player links are wrong - click on Paul Hogan and you get.... the Aussie actor bloke. Gary Anderson, Andy Hamilton and James Dougherty are all wrong as well. For me, they are not "famous players" if no-one has written an article about them. And that's regardless if Anderson is the WDF world number 1. This section needs some attention. Seedybob2 12:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Have removed "Famous Player" links for all players who don't have an article about them - as stated above they are obviously not that famous. Exceptions are former world champions Burnett, David, Wallace and Walton and Gary Anderson (current BDO world number 1). If anyone adds player links - would they add an article about them? Plus, the list is now alphabetical by surname. Seedybob2 20:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Status of WDF "World Champion"[edit]

There are several links to WDF World Champions - this is based on winners of the WDF World Cup Singles - which are not recognised as World Championships. If they are then Leighton Rees (1977), Nicky Virachkul (1979), John Lowe (1981,1991), Eric Bristow (1983,1985,1987,1989), Ray Barneveld (1997,1999,2003) and Roland Scholten (1993) would all have to be recognised. The WDF list the World Championship on their website as being the one held at Lakeside. Please give citation if you disagree. Seedybob2 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Round the Clock (Darts)[edit]

Since this page now exists, I'm going to shorten the section of the game in this article, and add a link. I'll still include a briefer summary. Any objections? --Kevin (TALK) 22:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not here :) JoshHolloway 13:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of Organisations section[edit]

First of all - isn't the spelling ORGANISATION? can somebody look into that?

It's a dialect thing. We bloody Americans (Or is it 'us bloody Americans"?) use 'z' in words like organize... see also "vocabulary" below. LastCallAgain (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Secondly - removed some tenous organisations from the list. Have left the three "governing bodies" and National Associations (added flagicons). Don't think xxxxxx League darts should be included in this section and it should be left for just national associations.

Next, I'll attack the external links section - something needs doing with that.... Seedybob2 19:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

electronic darts and related organizations.[edit]

This page is lacking information regarding electronic darts and related organizations and leagues (such as the NDA, www.ndadarts.com). Electronic darts is a fairly popular game in America and there are professional/amateur leagues in every major metro area as well as several large tournaments. Is there a reason that information regarding this subject is missing from the page? Or is it in another area I cannot seem to locate? TheSoop 03:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The First Recorded Game[edit]

I have issue with the following line from the current page: "The first recorded game of darts was in Dartford (hence its name)". Dartford was certainly not named after the game of darts; and surely the game of darts was named after the fact that you throw darts. However, I have no idea where the first recorded game of darts was played. 203.114.176.86 (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that too, I think this is vandalism, Dartford's name was derived from the River Darent. It is true that Andy Fordham is from Dartford, but the first recorded game in Dartford, no sorry I don't believe that for a second. Maybe we should delete it or at least add a citation notice on it. Raphie (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Jesus wept. Of course darts isn't named after Dartford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.203.151 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maked[edit]

God, I cant believe I didnt notice the "maked". Good catch Gorilla. Vinithehat (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Professional competitions[edit]

"Shirley Welker is currently the reigning WDF Champion". I can't find ANYTHING about a "Shirley Welker". This seems like vandalism to me. 68.200.98.166 (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BDO Women's rankings: John Chalmers?[edit]

The BDO Women's ranking section lists "John Chalmers" at number 18, and links to an American who coached football at the University of Iowa and died in 1962[1]. Something tells me that isn't right, on several different levels... LastCallAgain (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

PDC not a governing body[edit]

The PDC are professional tournament organisers, but not a governing body as stated here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.236.107 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably talking over my head, coz English semantics is not exactly my best sport :) - but afaik PDC players do not belong any other organisation, so what other governing body their sport could have other than PDC? --J. Sketter (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He is right, the PDC is not a governing body, they are event organisers / promoters. PDC players do not actually "belong" to the PDC they are members of the PDPA and play in PDC organised tournaments. The PDC cannot for example ammend the rules of the sport, this can only be done by the WDF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.49.220 (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

See also[edit]

The See also section of the article has Pub games and Pub sports, but both of these lead to the same article, the only difference is Pub sports leads to list of pub sports section in the pub games articles. Is this really needed. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 08:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

College project reviews[edit]

This article is the subject of a college project, per Wikipedia:School and university projects#University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Spring 2011). The following items all relate to that project. —C.Fred (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Just as a preliminary comment, it looks as though while darts and dart-playing is a very popular topic among Wikipedia sites (e.g., lawn darts, Premier League Darts, split in darts, Let's Talk Darts: Phil Taylor, and World Matchplay (darts)), your page is still generalized enough to encompass these more specific aspects of the game. I'm also delighted to see that this particular page shows up on the disambiguation list for "Darts" (which, I might add, is most definitely not short). Great job on publicity!

Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard

For the life of me I simply can't convince myself that a group of college students wrote this. It's absolutely fantastic--not only have you worded every sentence in a very unique and professional way, but you've gone the extra mile (or league!) to insert symbols (e.g., fractions) and pronunciation (such as the exact phonemes of "oche"). There are only minimal errors, such as "a quarter of an inch wide. . There is speculation" under the History subheading and a few extra spaces at the end of the "Professional Organizations" subheading, but again--these are quite minute in the grand scope of the project. Fantastic job!

Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context [and what might be missing?]

This page, although quite long, is very comprehensive in its structure and execution. You give a perfectly concise introductory paragraph before moving into descriptions of the dartboard as an object; considering that many readers have no idea how to play the game, it was a wise move on your part to tackle the mechanics of the board itself before moving on to the game.

Because the Equipment heading only talks about the dartboard and no other form of equipment, I might recommend changing the name of this heading to "Dartboard" and creating three subheadings under that (History, Height and distance, Scoring) rather than three sub-subheadings under a single subheading. The "Playing darts" heading, however, has further descriptions directly beneath it before addressing "Other darts games and variants", so I recommend leaving that as is. Nicely done.

One last suggestion might be to move the Betting heading as a second subheading under "Playing darts"--that is, after talking about Killer add a section 2.2 (the same number of = signs on either side of the "Other darts games and variants" subheading) for betting, because it applies more directly to the actual playing of darts rather than its organizations or televised events.

Well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate [are there a variety of sources/viewpoints?]

I can't stress enough just how thorough your research appears to be. Again, fantastic job collecting this information and presenting it in such a clear and professional way. You've adequately branched out to a number of different sources and have cited many references, "See Also" Wikipedia pages, and amateur league and/or professional organizations within this single page. Might there be another possibility for "Further reading" besides Chaplin's recent book? Just a thought…but a very nit-picky and probably pointless one.

Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias

I can't see much of a reason why neutrality would be a problem within this specific topic, but even so, I can't sense any source of bias or particularly dominant viewpoint regarding its playing, its betting practices, its players, or its affiliated organizations.

Formatted appropriated: it follows Wikipedia style guidelines.

This page has so much potential for attracting Wikipedians' attention as a "Featured Page": Your utilization of disambiguations, frequent inter- and outside-Wikipedia links, non-distracting pictures and diagrams, clear and comprehensive tables, and bulleted outline styles are simply fabulous and remind me strongly of a featured Wikipedia page. Congratulations on a job well done!

Jbodford (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

:The above reads like a Good Article Nomination review but I don't think that it is. For the sake of completeness, I'd point out that this article is nowhere near featured quality and probably not yet GA quality. It needs, in particular, a lot more in the way of citations. There are multitudes of paragraphs without any form of cite at all. I'm not knocking the work done (which is good even if not yet GA quality), just putting the above comments from a relatively new editor (150 edits) into perspective. I'm not part of this project <g> - Sitush (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

This entry is very engaging and has the advantage of being based on a rather unique topic. The overall flow of information allows the reader to understand the different aspects and pieces of history of the game.

Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context [and what might be missing?]

The sections presented offer a wealth of information around the different aspects of the game. In particular, I enjoy the section on the different styles of darts and the role darts is playing throughout the world today (and in the past). In terms of the ‘equipment’ section, would it be reasonable to include a section on the actual darts themselves? Perhaps this section could include some information on the different types of ‘tips’ (i.e. soft v. hard) that darts can have? As I am not very informed on this topic, some further research into this might provide some more insight into this suggestion.

Well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; [are there a variety of sources/viewpoints?]

Although there does not seem to be much room for controversial opinions or biased information, the further reading section could be enhanced with additional resources. The references appear to be reliable and provide valuable information. In terms of the ‘other darts games and variants’ section, this section might be more beneficial if some information was pulled about those different topics to include in this page. By doing this, other users might be more interested about those different versions and then visit the corresponding wiki page or engage further within this page. Maybe a better way of representing this information would be in a chart to break up the information and provide a quick view.

Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias

As mentioned in the section above, as I read through this entry, I did not get the feeling that the sources were biased or subjective. Outside of the ways that different versions of the game are played, there is not much room for the issue of neutrality.

Formatted appropriately: it follows Wikipedia style guidelines.

At this point, the entry is in alignment with the style guidelines of Wikipedia. This is a testament to the precise documentation of credible sources and attribution of all visuals (amongst all text) presented within the page. In addition, the layout of information is constructed in a reasonable manner that satisfies the pre-determined guidelines.

Overall, your group has done a great job with compiling a sufficient amount of information that is valuable to the topic. The length of each sub-section with the major sections was not too long to discourage me from leaving the page. I was engaged throughout the entire page and as I mentioned earlier was intrigued enough to visit other pages about the variants of darts. However, the organization of the sections can be tightened up some to better portray the information (i.e. charts, graphs, bullets, etc.). You did a very good job with this under the ‘scoring’ section. The depth of information presented reflects the amount of work your group has put into this page. Great job! HeelFan2445 (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

:As per my previous comment, the submission above reads like a Good Article Nomination review but I don't think that it is. For the sake of completeness, I'd point out that this article is nowhere near featured quality and probably not yet GA quality. It needs, in particular, a lot more in the way of citations. There are multitudes of paragraphs without any form of cite at all. I'm not knocking the work done (which is good even if not yet GA quality), just putting the above comments from a relatively new editor (55 edits, most in user talkspace with two "friends", one of whom wrote the previous GA-style review above) into perspective. Methinks some people may be fooling around a bit. Expect another like the above Real Soon Now as there is at least one other connected party in this group. They're legit comments, of course, just seem to be in places a bit misguided. I'm not part of this project <g> - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by Johnstc Johnstc (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[edit]

Overall when reading this page I am very impressed with the information and the overall popularity of the site already. I think darts and be a very broad subject, but the writers distinguished certain aspects that make it different from any other darts Wikipedia page.

Well Written: Very good writing and formal style of writing creates a professional aspect to Wikipedia. I think the group does a great job informing the reader about the games of darts and the unique history behind the game. I personally learned a few things after reading this article, which means it was written wonderful and I do not think there would be much to change except adding a little more information for each "game" you speak about. I like how you have the link, but I also think it is smart to have a little information on your page as well.

Comprehensive: The group did a great job capturing different aspects of the dart family. The games and history given creates a very strong piece of writing. People would commonly go onto Wikipedia for information on a subject, and this page does just that. I really enjoy looking at the examples and types of games that come with playing darts. I think it is very educational and interesting for the viewer. I feel like for each game and the history of it would be interesting to add to the page. This would probably gather even more viewers that are already viewing the page.

Well researched: I feel like you have done a great job researching. I feel like you have everything very organized and throughly thought about each aspect while researching for the topic. You did a great job expressing and showing the Wikipedia viewers your information that you found. I think the page could use a few more sources to complete the total research aspect and possibly link them to the sections that they are assigned to. Great job and it seems like the most researched project I have seen/read yet!

Neutral: There is a very neutral sense of writing throughout the page. I also am not sure where this would come into effect throughout this Darts article unless people were giving their opinion (which is not occurring) Great Job!

Formatted Appropriate: This page seems very professional and well done. I personally would choose to read this page for entertainment and not just class. One thing I might add is a few more links to the page throughout. (to help show the history) Great work and I look forward to seeing the final product! Johnstc (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Johnstc

Peer Review[edit]

This article is extremely comprehensive. It contains a wealth of information, which is to be expected with a topic so large. The content is very well-written. It’s clinical and in-depth, however, needs many more inline citations to support the information. There are numerous references listed, which is good. Because it’s so dense, the subject headings are critical. I would start with the history section. Consider combining some subject headings, such as height and distance and scoring. Darts (the actual darts that you throw verse the game is ambiguous). I would suggest eliminating unnecessary information. The Betting section seems like it might belong in a different article. I don’t see any evidence of bias (which I’m not sure where that would come into play anyway in an article like this.) Earthtoclay (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by Coreyjweb (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[edit]

as has been noted before, I think this is a very complete and effective Wikipedia entry full of usefull information to curious onlookers as well as seasoned professionals.

Well Written: The article is very professionally written with few negligible grammatical errors (nothing that distracts from the subject). The page seems as if it were written by a world darts organization. While providing very in depth material, the language is easy to understand for even the most green of novices without the risk of patronizing professionals.

Comprehensive: The number of references to other wikis speaks volumes for how comprehensive the article was. Clearly the group has gone into research about darts and provided examples of several modifications to the game, as well as its history and regional differences.

Well researched: this page was very well researched and cites several reputable sources. A wealth of knowledge about the many variances of darts is freely available to any user that might happen upon this page.

Neutral: Very neutral. No preference is shown of one variant of the game over another, but all the facts are presented objectively.

Formatted Appropriate: The format is an excellent use of common Wikipedia techniques. One minor issue seems to have occurred with the bulleting in the "Scoring" section (this may have been done on purpose to show there are subpoints, but if so, you may want to not bullet the subpoints or use a different bulleting scheme). Also, while there are several sources listed, I would like to see more in-line keys to the references at the bottom of the page. Overall Amazing job though!!Coreyjweb (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review by Ktmills[edit]

Well-written: I am really impressed by this page and am of the opinion that well done pages are the hardest to critique. I thought the information presented was all relevant and useful. I liked how you worded the introduction and the rest of the page was of great writing caliber. I thought the page looked and sounded professional and was very well researched.

Comprehensive: Your group did a great job of organizing the information into different relevant subgroups which is imperative for comprehension. I think the group did a great job of identifying the key subgroups that are apart of the more broad topic and the subgroups are all well developed. I can't think of any aspect of darts that your group missed to discuss. Considering the topic is so broad, the group did a good job covering all the necessary topics.

Well-researched: I think the group is off to a great start with research. You have gone to a lot of different resources and have annotated them well. I had no idea that there were so many games associated with darts and actually learned something myself reading your page.

Neutral: I didn't sense any form of bias on the page! Good Work!

Formatted appropriated: I was surprised by how well formatted the page. I loved the use of the table for the champions and how they are linked to each persons individual page. The page is definitely professionally formatted.

Ktmills —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

Peer Review by User:beatkins (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[edit]

this is a great wikipedia page. you guys have really covered all angles and were very inovative on the information you put on the site. I was surprized that the simple word darts was not on wikipedia before but i think it is great that you have incorporated profesional darts as well as the other games you can play with darts great job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooke.atkinson (talkcontribs) 17:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Union[edit]

The union has been repeatedly changed from the World Darts Federation to the Professional Darts Corporation. From the looks of the related articles, the PDC is a breakaway group. Is there any reason that the PDC should be listed as the top level of the sport rather than the competing league or the WDF as an umbrella organization? —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chalmers