![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SilkTork * YES! 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll look at this article over the next few days, and then start to leave some comments. SilkTork * YES! 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll put comments down here as I'm reading through. I'll summarise the GA criteria points later. SilkTork * YES! 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Why wouldn't the article be complete without the information in the tables? Tables are only a way of presenting information. It is the detail in the tables that is being questioned. Some of the important data is already mentioned in the article - it is the other, less important data, that is being questioned. For example - that Davis was a runner up in the Kit-Kat Break for World Champions, the Matchroom Professional Championship, and the Guangzhou Masters. Do you see that listing that he was a runner up in various minor tournaments might be seen as excessive detail which could be moved to a separate page, leaving this page just for the important detail. How is the general reader to work out from those lists of data which is important?
I'm quite comfortable with finishing the review and if you are still uncertain about removing some of the detail to a sub-article, asking for a second opinion. Though I'd like you to look more closely at the guidelines I've linked and see where you think my interpretation has erred. I may well be wrong (often am!), and information gained from this review will be useful when applied to other articles and reviews. SilkTork * Tea time 16:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
main}}
in most or every section and a clipped "just the facts, ma'am" style - users quickly understand that the article is a "micro-portal" with most of the content in subarticles. But it's confusing to have a well-developed, self-contained article suddenly stop being well-developed and self-contained. A good example of how annoying this is, is a TV show article on a new series that has already forked off a "List of [whatever] episodes" subarticle, despite only having 2 episodes and no indication that it will ever have a second season (or series in UK English), and thus no actual need for such a subarticle; cf.
The Borgias (2011 TV series). It's jarring, and a waste of both editor and reader time and effort. Anyway, I'll remain skeptical but neutral-ish, but wanted to point out that there are sane rationales in both directions (and actually more than one option, such as trimming the amount of detail but retaining the tables, or as you proposed making the tables collapsible, and so on). A split would be valid, but should only be done if a) the tabular data is seen as genuinely overwhelming or "TMI" in the context (and do consider that in the context of statistics-heavy sports like snooker, lots of stats are expected and would be considered a frustrating omission if hard to find), and b) there is enough data to make a good separate article (splitting content off into a stub often results in a re-merge after a while). But don't count me as your 2nd opinion; ask another regular GA reviewer, preferably one who commonly deals with sports bios. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs.
15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a useful article which currently needs a little more work to meet the GA criteria. The sourcing relies heavily on two web sites whose reliability needs to be verified, and does not make use of books on or by the subject. As such it will not pass 2 (b). The lead needs a little more building, and more consideration given to organisation of the article, so this doesn't quite meet 1 (b). There is too much focus on the stats at the bottom of the article, while a useful summary of Davis's achievements is lacking from the main body; at the same time a little more information regarding Davis's early life would be worthwhile. Article doesn't fully meet 3. There is still a questionable image in the article. I think the work needed to reach GA status is not that much, though it is likely that obtaining the books by Davis's will take a couple of days, plus a few days to read, so I will put this on hold for 14 days, though will close earlier if sufficient work is done within this time. I will get a second opinion on the question of criteria 3 (b) - "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" when/if that remains the only sticking point. I can be reached on my talkpage or by email, though I will drop by here now and again to see how things are developing. SilkTork * Tea time 13:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm pleased to see that work is still taking place on the article, and some issues, such as the contentious image, have been dealt with. However, there are still a number of remaining aspects that need attention, and if more substantial progress is not made in the next 7 days it might be better to close this GAN and return to it later, giving people more time to address the issues, if they can. If the excessive detail is the only remaining issue by June 9, then I will get a second opinion, but if there are still other significant issues, such as the referencing, then I will close. SilkTork * Tea time 10:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The Chris Turner source is still being used, so this article cannot be listed as a Good Article. Before closing, I think it's worth saying that while it would be useful to consult Davis's biographies, the article appears to be broad enough to pass the GA criteria on coverage without it. Other than that, the comments immediately above still apply, and would be the areas that editors need to work on to improve this article. SilkTork * Tea time 08:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I do think the article could do with some images to spruce it up a little. Although Commons has a few other images at commons:Category:Steve_Davis,_snooker_player, there are two excellent photographs at Flickr that are licensed CC-BY 2.0 by a user named Jeppe2. They look legit (and pass the TinEye.com test). They also include camera info and plenty of details on what was happening when the image was taken. Here they are: [1], [2]. (A third, bizzare one: [3].) I would upload both to Commons and throw them into this article. If you're busy working on the article, let me know and I'll be happy to do the uploading for you. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 08:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I try to improve the article with new information and all I get are pedants and blowhards like 'Armbrust' telling me my edits are 'vandalism' or 'poor quality'. That's when they even bother to give an explanation. Maybe 'Armbrust' can tell us all what is poor quality and vandalous about this : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steve_Davis&action=historysubmit&diff=427753137&oldid=427751615 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.15.132 ( talk) 14:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone check that the use of flags without country names (per the various tables) is congruent with WP:MOSFLAG please? The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Accompany flags with country names
The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags
Yep, fine by me, a legend box has been used several times where the country may "get in the way" (as it were). I think that would be acceptable, and particularly as there aren't too many countries to note here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like some work will need to be done on the sortablility of the tables. We now use {{ sortname}} to sort correctly by surname, and the score columns seem to need some work, right now they sort completely incorrectly. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
In the "Career finals" section, there are a few blank cells. This is confusing, these should be addressed with referenced notes. The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The book came through from the library today so I've been able to replace some of the references. Some of the results where in the wrong order so I've correct those (presuming the book has them in the right order). Unfortunately it only records results from matches of at least 9 frames, so I wasn't able to replace them all.
Another problem that has arisen is that the book calls the "Matchroom Professional Championship" the "Matchroom Trophy". The problem here is that the 1985 International Open was also called the Matchroom Trophy (which the book also calls the Matchroom Trophy!) but they were different events since the International Open went back to being called the International Open, after being called the Goya Matchroom Trophy in 1985. Either there were two events called the Matchroom Trophy (unlikely but not impossible) or the book has confused the two names (more likely). We need to verify exactly what the 1986–1988 event was called (either the Matchroom Professional Championship or the Matchroom Trophy), preferably with a reliable source. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Why has the PTC event details been deleted and a commented added that they do no require so much detail? To a player like Davis at this stage in his career these events are very telling of his future thoughts regarding his particioation in the game. If he doesn't enter them or enters and performs badly, because of the significant changes in the way the rankings are made, it is not beyond reasonable doubt that Davis could retire at the end of this season. A first round defeat to James Wattana, may only be seen as being a push more towards that notion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.32.67 ( talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
In part I agree with your points, however given that this starts Davis' season, the information is important in the context of the start of the season. For each event is telling of what his future in snooker is likely to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.32.67 ( talk) 13:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think given the stage of career that Davis is in that it is vitally important to show that he has started the season and what events he entered? to delete them and leave only the 2010/11 season as the last entry when the new one has started is irrational and wrong. 94.7.32.67 ( talk) 16:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
What's speculative about providing a list of times Davis has defended possible retirement, it's quite a real subject adn nothing speculative at all about it, he himself has defended his positon whilst others, notably Dennis Taylor amongst many have questioned his continued playing. For a player like Davis it is ludicrous to think that this is not an issue 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 17:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disgree with the point that PTC's are not important to Davis, As Davis, withdrew from the Australian Open, it would create a faulse impression of his view on this season, as he did enter PTC1, thus he is still playing and does intend to contiue. It is completely wrong to delete the writting about the PTC1 entry and Australian Open, for as the season has already started, it creates an impression that Davis is not playing proffessional snooker, in the contect of a whole season, yes each individual PTC event etc are of little note, but given it's the start of the season and Davis' age and stage of his career, it is vitally important to shw that he has started it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 18:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
If one searches Steve davis retirement on the net, there are many refference from Dennis Taylor to expecting davis o retire in the summer, when one goes to the wikipedia page there is nothing for him starting the 2011/12 season, a very poor state of affairs.
Is it not the place to recode in Encyclopaedic detail Davis' participation in the spoort of Snooker? if so why does it mention nothing regarding season? Has he retired? I'll be putting that Davis entered PTC1 and withdrew from the Australian Open, and I expect it to stay in place until more creditable and significant happenings in the 2011/12 appear, until then these are the most note worthy points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You are not the last word on what is or is not required, writing that Davis has started the season, is valid, if that means writing he entered PTC1 and withdrew from the qualifier for the Australian Open, then so be it, the latter point is notable in it's own right as Davis withdrawing from events, is not something he did in his hey day. The page should be current, and the entry to the PTC's may be deleted AFTER more significant events have occured, but until then, they serve to illustrate that he has started the season - a valid point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.210.38 ( talk) 10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Lets get this in perspective, the page has random match scores from specific matches, what real relevance has giving a match scrore from seasons agot in comparison to the very vaslid point that Davis has started the 2011/12 season. The points I;ve written have no more or less detaikl of weight than all of the detail given for the last season and season before that, why do you feel that starting the 2011/12 season is not required? If the first event was the Shanghai and he's lost in that, then it would be the same as the entry for the last season, the fact of the matter is that, the first event this season, is the Australian Goldfields open, and instead of losing, he withdrew, why is that no worthy of deletion, whilst a match score and opponent in his shanghai match, amongst others remains. You have no real resaon for deleting Davis' start to the 2011/12 sesaon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.210.38 ( talk) 11:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do you sugest a first round withdrawal is not needed whilst prvious paragraphs go into match score detail and opponent's names? in the similar events? If his withdrawal from the Australian Open is not needed why do we need to know that "he lost 1–3 against Peter Ebdon in the last 64 of the World Open"? Fact that Daivs is now willing to withdraw from events, is far more important to him than whether he lsot in the last 64 of an event, to whom and by how much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 14:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is it important to Steve davis's page that detail such as: "Willie Thorne, who missed a blue off the spot which would have given him a 14–8" on his page, Thorne missing a blue of it's spot is on there, and you delete a point about davis now being at a stage in his career where he withdraws from events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 14:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
A first round withdrawal is not the same as not participating. It could be said that Davis didn;t participate in the Wuxi Classic, he was however enetered into the Australian Goldfields Open, but withdrew and for any snooker player that is as important as a loss, for he receives no ranking points for that event, you could probably count on one hand the number of times Davis has withdrawn from an event in the last 30 years. I care what you say, for I'm trying to discuss points rather than deleting other peoples edits, which are in line with others already on the article, you have ignored by questions on why, such lines as whille thorne missing a blue off a spot and last 64 match scores and opponents names as in the article and yet you seemed to think Davis receiving no ranking points in his first two events of a season were not important and deleted them, you are not the last word of what and is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 16:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The additions of the "How I Play Snooker" is not relevant and the addition of the "and took him through Joe Davis' instructional book How I Play Snooker "page by page, drill by drill"." text doesn't even make sense. Who "took him through"? Previous edits by IPs like [4] are even original research. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Davis was introduced to snooker by his father Bill, a keen player, who took him to play at his local working men's club at the age of 12, [1] and gave him Joe Davis' instructional book How I Play Snooker. [2] They studied the book and build Davis' own technique on it in the 1970's. [3]
5 Peter Ebdon became the fifth last season reference Peter Ebdons page QueenAlexandria 20:14 23/07/12 utc —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have followed Davis's career for many years and never heard him referred to as Steve 'Stumble' Davis or the 'Romford Robot'. Can anyone name a source for these?
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: SilkTork * YES! 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll look at this article over the next few days, and then start to leave some comments. SilkTork * YES! 22:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'll put comments down here as I'm reading through. I'll summarise the GA criteria points later. SilkTork * YES! 22:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Why wouldn't the article be complete without the information in the tables? Tables are only a way of presenting information. It is the detail in the tables that is being questioned. Some of the important data is already mentioned in the article - it is the other, less important data, that is being questioned. For example - that Davis was a runner up in the Kit-Kat Break for World Champions, the Matchroom Professional Championship, and the Guangzhou Masters. Do you see that listing that he was a runner up in various minor tournaments might be seen as excessive detail which could be moved to a separate page, leaving this page just for the important detail. How is the general reader to work out from those lists of data which is important?
I'm quite comfortable with finishing the review and if you are still uncertain about removing some of the detail to a sub-article, asking for a second opinion. Though I'd like you to look more closely at the guidelines I've linked and see where you think my interpretation has erred. I may well be wrong (often am!), and information gained from this review will be useful when applied to other articles and reviews. SilkTork * Tea time 16:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
main}}
in most or every section and a clipped "just the facts, ma'am" style - users quickly understand that the article is a "micro-portal" with most of the content in subarticles. But it's confusing to have a well-developed, self-contained article suddenly stop being well-developed and self-contained. A good example of how annoying this is, is a TV show article on a new series that has already forked off a "List of [whatever] episodes" subarticle, despite only having 2 episodes and no indication that it will ever have a second season (or series in UK English), and thus no actual need for such a subarticle; cf.
The Borgias (2011 TV series). It's jarring, and a waste of both editor and reader time and effort. Anyway, I'll remain skeptical but neutral-ish, but wanted to point out that there are sane rationales in both directions (and actually more than one option, such as trimming the amount of detail but retaining the tables, or as you proposed making the tables collapsible, and so on). A split would be valid, but should only be done if a) the tabular data is seen as genuinely overwhelming or "TMI" in the context (and do consider that in the context of statistics-heavy sports like snooker, lots of stats are expected and would be considered a frustrating omission if hard to find), and b) there is enough data to make a good separate article (splitting content off into a stub often results in a re-merge after a while). But don't count me as your 2nd opinion; ask another regular GA reviewer, preferably one who commonly deals with sports bios. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs.
15:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a useful article which currently needs a little more work to meet the GA criteria. The sourcing relies heavily on two web sites whose reliability needs to be verified, and does not make use of books on or by the subject. As such it will not pass 2 (b). The lead needs a little more building, and more consideration given to organisation of the article, so this doesn't quite meet 1 (b). There is too much focus on the stats at the bottom of the article, while a useful summary of Davis's achievements is lacking from the main body; at the same time a little more information regarding Davis's early life would be worthwhile. Article doesn't fully meet 3. There is still a questionable image in the article. I think the work needed to reach GA status is not that much, though it is likely that obtaining the books by Davis's will take a couple of days, plus a few days to read, so I will put this on hold for 14 days, though will close earlier if sufficient work is done within this time. I will get a second opinion on the question of criteria 3 (b) - "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" when/if that remains the only sticking point. I can be reached on my talkpage or by email, though I will drop by here now and again to see how things are developing. SilkTork * Tea time 13:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I'm pleased to see that work is still taking place on the article, and some issues, such as the contentious image, have been dealt with. However, there are still a number of remaining aspects that need attention, and if more substantial progress is not made in the next 7 days it might be better to close this GAN and return to it later, giving people more time to address the issues, if they can. If the excessive detail is the only remaining issue by June 9, then I will get a second opinion, but if there are still other significant issues, such as the referencing, then I will close. SilkTork * Tea time 10:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The Chris Turner source is still being used, so this article cannot be listed as a Good Article. Before closing, I think it's worth saying that while it would be useful to consult Davis's biographies, the article appears to be broad enough to pass the GA criteria on coverage without it. Other than that, the comments immediately above still apply, and would be the areas that editors need to work on to improve this article. SilkTork * Tea time 08:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I do think the article could do with some images to spruce it up a little. Although Commons has a few other images at commons:Category:Steve_Davis,_snooker_player, there are two excellent photographs at Flickr that are licensed CC-BY 2.0 by a user named Jeppe2. They look legit (and pass the TinEye.com test). They also include camera info and plenty of details on what was happening when the image was taken. Here they are: [1], [2]. (A third, bizzare one: [3].) I would upload both to Commons and throw them into this article. If you're busy working on the article, let me know and I'll be happy to do the uploading for you. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ gala xies 08:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I try to improve the article with new information and all I get are pedants and blowhards like 'Armbrust' telling me my edits are 'vandalism' or 'poor quality'. That's when they even bother to give an explanation. Maybe 'Armbrust' can tell us all what is poor quality and vandalous about this : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Steve_Davis&action=historysubmit&diff=427753137&oldid=427751615 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.15.132 ( talk) 14:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone check that the use of flags without country names (per the various tables) is congruent with WP:MOSFLAG please? The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Accompany flags with country names
The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags
Yep, fine by me, a legend box has been used several times where the country may "get in the way" (as it were). I think that would be acceptable, and particularly as there aren't too many countries to note here. The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like some work will need to be done on the sortablility of the tables. We now use {{ sortname}} to sort correctly by surname, and the score columns seem to need some work, right now they sort completely incorrectly. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
In the "Career finals" section, there are a few blank cells. This is confusing, these should be addressed with referenced notes. The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The book came through from the library today so I've been able to replace some of the references. Some of the results where in the wrong order so I've correct those (presuming the book has them in the right order). Unfortunately it only records results from matches of at least 9 frames, so I wasn't able to replace them all.
Another problem that has arisen is that the book calls the "Matchroom Professional Championship" the "Matchroom Trophy". The problem here is that the 1985 International Open was also called the Matchroom Trophy (which the book also calls the Matchroom Trophy!) but they were different events since the International Open went back to being called the International Open, after being called the Goya Matchroom Trophy in 1985. Either there were two events called the Matchroom Trophy (unlikely but not impossible) or the book has confused the two names (more likely). We need to verify exactly what the 1986–1988 event was called (either the Matchroom Professional Championship or the Matchroom Trophy), preferably with a reliable source. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Why has the PTC event details been deleted and a commented added that they do no require so much detail? To a player like Davis at this stage in his career these events are very telling of his future thoughts regarding his particioation in the game. If he doesn't enter them or enters and performs badly, because of the significant changes in the way the rankings are made, it is not beyond reasonable doubt that Davis could retire at the end of this season. A first round defeat to James Wattana, may only be seen as being a push more towards that notion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.32.67 ( talk) 12:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
In part I agree with your points, however given that this starts Davis' season, the information is important in the context of the start of the season. For each event is telling of what his future in snooker is likely to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.32.67 ( talk) 13:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think given the stage of career that Davis is in that it is vitally important to show that he has started the season and what events he entered? to delete them and leave only the 2010/11 season as the last entry when the new one has started is irrational and wrong. 94.7.32.67 ( talk) 16:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
What's speculative about providing a list of times Davis has defended possible retirement, it's quite a real subject adn nothing speculative at all about it, he himself has defended his positon whilst others, notably Dennis Taylor amongst many have questioned his continued playing. For a player like Davis it is ludicrous to think that this is not an issue 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 17:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disgree with the point that PTC's are not important to Davis, As Davis, withdrew from the Australian Open, it would create a faulse impression of his view on this season, as he did enter PTC1, thus he is still playing and does intend to contiue. It is completely wrong to delete the writting about the PTC1 entry and Australian Open, for as the season has already started, it creates an impression that Davis is not playing proffessional snooker, in the contect of a whole season, yes each individual PTC event etc are of little note, but given it's the start of the season and Davis' age and stage of his career, it is vitally important to shw that he has started it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 18:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
If one searches Steve davis retirement on the net, there are many refference from Dennis Taylor to expecting davis o retire in the summer, when one goes to the wikipedia page there is nothing for him starting the 2011/12 season, a very poor state of affairs.
Is it not the place to recode in Encyclopaedic detail Davis' participation in the spoort of Snooker? if so why does it mention nothing regarding season? Has he retired? I'll be putting that Davis entered PTC1 and withdrew from the Australian Open, and I expect it to stay in place until more creditable and significant happenings in the 2011/12 appear, until then these are the most note worthy points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 19:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
You are not the last word on what is or is not required, writing that Davis has started the season, is valid, if that means writing he entered PTC1 and withdrew from the qualifier for the Australian Open, then so be it, the latter point is notable in it's own right as Davis withdrawing from events, is not something he did in his hey day. The page should be current, and the entry to the PTC's may be deleted AFTER more significant events have occured, but until then, they serve to illustrate that he has started the season - a valid point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.210.38 ( talk) 10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Lets get this in perspective, the page has random match scores from specific matches, what real relevance has giving a match scrore from seasons agot in comparison to the very vaslid point that Davis has started the 2011/12 season. The points I;ve written have no more or less detaikl of weight than all of the detail given for the last season and season before that, why do you feel that starting the 2011/12 season is not required? If the first event was the Shanghai and he's lost in that, then it would be the same as the entry for the last season, the fact of the matter is that, the first event this season, is the Australian Goldfields open, and instead of losing, he withdrew, why is that no worthy of deletion, whilst a match score and opponent in his shanghai match, amongst others remains. You have no real resaon for deleting Davis' start to the 2011/12 sesaon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.210.38 ( talk) 11:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Why do you sugest a first round withdrawal is not needed whilst prvious paragraphs go into match score detail and opponent's names? in the similar events? If his withdrawal from the Australian Open is not needed why do we need to know that "he lost 1–3 against Peter Ebdon in the last 64 of the World Open"? Fact that Daivs is now willing to withdraw from events, is far more important to him than whether he lsot in the last 64 of an event, to whom and by how much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 14:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is it important to Steve davis's page that detail such as: "Willie Thorne, who missed a blue off the spot which would have given him a 14–8" on his page, Thorne missing a blue of it's spot is on there, and you delete a point about davis now being at a stage in his career where he withdraws from events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 14:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
A first round withdrawal is not the same as not participating. It could be said that Davis didn;t participate in the Wuxi Classic, he was however enetered into the Australian Goldfields Open, but withdrew and for any snooker player that is as important as a loss, for he receives no ranking points for that event, you could probably count on one hand the number of times Davis has withdrawn from an event in the last 30 years. I care what you say, for I'm trying to discuss points rather than deleting other peoples edits, which are in line with others already on the article, you have ignored by questions on why, such lines as whille thorne missing a blue off a spot and last 64 match scores and opponents names as in the article and yet you seemed to think Davis receiving no ranking points in his first two events of a season were not important and deleted them, you are not the last word of what and is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.1 ( talk) 16:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The additions of the "How I Play Snooker" is not relevant and the addition of the "and took him through Joe Davis' instructional book How I Play Snooker "page by page, drill by drill"." text doesn't even make sense. Who "took him through"? Previous edits by IPs like [4] are even original research. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 17:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Davis was introduced to snooker by his father Bill, a keen player, who took him to play at his local working men's club at the age of 12, [1] and gave him Joe Davis' instructional book How I Play Snooker. [2] They studied the book and build Davis' own technique on it in the 1970's. [3]
5 Peter Ebdon became the fifth last season reference Peter Ebdons page QueenAlexandria 20:14 23/07/12 utc —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have followed Davis's career for many years and never heard him referred to as Steve 'Stumble' Davis or the 'Romford Robot'. Can anyone name a source for these?