Talk:Jean Balukas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Jean Balukas has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 26, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

Find sources: "Jean Balukas" pool – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference
Find sources: "Jean Balukas" billiard – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

No longer only female pro in men's events[edit]

Resolved: Article updated to say "in her era".

Just FYI, Jasmin Ouschan finished 5th in the men's World Straight Pool Championship in 2006, Allison Fisher regularly dukes it out with the top males in trick shot competitions, meanwhile Jeanette Lee is also a world speed pool contender against male pros. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

Just some issues with prose flow and some quotations that need to have citations right with them.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    I've listed some places where the prose feels choppy, mainly due to the short paragraphs used.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    needs some citations on the direct quotations
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • The lede could use some expansion.A bit more about her young starts in the late 1960s would help with that.The whole Young Prodigy section isn't covered at all in the lede.
  • Young prodigy section, fourth paragraph, the "a little girl with honey-blond..." quotation needs a direct citation, per WP:CITE. The sentence it is in is also a run on sentence.
  • Same section, fifth paragraph, link to this appearance of US Open Straight Pool Championship, rather than in the first paragraph of the next section.
  • Same section. The second and third paragraphs are very short and give the prose a choppy feel. Consider combing them with each other and possibly the first paragraph to help the prose flow. Several other paragraphs in this section are short and could be merged or expanded to help the prose flow.
  • Playing with men section, the direct quotation "best in the world, flat out" needs a direct citation next to it.
  • Same section, the last three paragraphs are very short, consider combining or expanding them.
  • Dress code controversy. First two paragraphs are short, consider expanding or combining.
  • Break with the sport section. Consider combining some of these paragraphs to make the prose flow better.
  • Same sections, all the direct quotations need citations attached to them. I know it is a pain, but them's the rules.
  • Honors section, same deal with the short paragraphs.
  • Consider breaking the references into two columns with {{reflist|2}}

Neat article! Just some issues with prose flow and some direct quotations that need attached to them.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review Ealdgyth. Rather than check or strikeout each section, I've addressed all of them (consider them all checked/stricken), but for one exception. It might cause confusion to wikify the earlier mention of the U.S. Open, as it appears directly after another necessary linked term, and would thus appear as one link. This is directly addressed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?. Actually, at the moment, it wouldn't do so because the one is blue and the other still red, but that will not prevail forever. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all, thanks for the quick attention to them. And no problem on the link. Sorry you feel that putting the footnotes at the quotes is silly (I actually agree, honestly. You should be able to just do normal references) but them's the rules, unfortunately. Looks great, it was an interesting read, and a nice change of pace from the football players I've spent the week reviewing! Thanks for writing it.Ealdgyth | Talk 22:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. Regarding the sourcing grumbling, you might not find anyone more vehement than I am on the subject of requiring sources for every fact. I was only referring to sourcing for the sentence where the quote is followed by attribution in the text, in the form ""quote text"<ref> she said in an interview in 1999."<ref> It seems to me that placing the reference directly after the quote and after the attribution language is redundant. Anyway, thanks for the review, your time, and your kind words.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Version 0.7[edit]

This article has been nominated for Version 0.7 of the offline Wikipedia release but did not meet the standards for importance. It has been put on Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations/Held_nominations for further review. Please see that page for details.

Unfortunately this topic is not ranked as very important, by any of our measurements. A shame, because it is interesting! Thanks anyway for the nomination. Walkerma (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jean Balukas/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 17:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 19:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)