Talk:John Parrott

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on John Parrott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Parrott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of ranking champions

It's placed as being 11th on all time lost of ranking tournament championship, but this only includes "major" titles. That should be explained in the text, as it isn't true for all ranking championships as Judd Trump would have him beat. Lee Vilenski(talk) 00:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC) Lee Vilenski(talk) 00:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Airlines London Masters

IP 92.251.206.254 made an edit that I disagreed with so I reverted it with explanation. The IP objected because he/she wrongly inferred that I was accusing them of being "in doubt" about the difference between the longstanding Dafabet Masters and the shortlived London Masters, when I was merely pointing out that if the reader is in doubt then they can easily follow the associated links to check the tournaments. Personally I think it's unnecessary to include the sponsor of the London Masters in the table because the entry should ideally match the article title and common name of the event. Do any other editors have an opinion on this? The same change has been made to the Stephen Hendry and Steve Davis articles.

Regardless of whether or not the original edit makes it through... using the BRD process, you make a bold edit, someone comes along and reverts your edit, you then discuss the matter on the Talk page if you object to the revert. You do not revert the revert! It's all very well being bold but if there is an objection to your change then you should respectfully seek a mini consensus on the point in question. I have now restored the page to the version before the original edit was made, but if the IP proceeds to try imposing the edit for a 3rd time I shall have no option but to report him/her to admin, as I will not enter into an edit war. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, this sort of thing has been suggested before (using sponsors as disambiguation) and I wholeheartedly disagree. If there was a confusion between the London Masters, and the Masters then a {{efn}} note would cover this better. (Something like - not to be confused with the Masters.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Unsuccessful. IAWW (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Parrott/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 11:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 12:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this. This article has several "failed verification" tags, so I will start with the spot check to see if the source-text integrity issues go beyond these tags.

Spot check

Spot check numbers are based on this version. Note I will be checking the citations that I suspect may have issues, not doing it completely randomly.

[8a]: ☒N Doesn't support that the junior pot black was televised or "He turned professional in 1983 after winning 14 tournaments in his last year as an amateur player"

[3f]: I can't access this source, but nonetheless this autobiography cannot be used to support exceptional claims like "Parrott qualified for the World Snooker Championship on the first attempt, losing only three frames in qualification" WP:ABOUTSELF. There are a few more instances of this issue.

[31]: Mostly checkY, though I don't understand what "Having won both the UK Championship, he was unable to complete the Triple Crown" is trying to say.

[43]: ☒N I think it is meant to say 6–9 defeat, not 6–10 defeat. Also "Parrott finished outside the top 64 in the end of season rankings and was not assured a place on the main tour for the 2010–11 season" isn't fully supported, as the source predicts this will happen in future tense, which isn't the same as supporting that it did actually happen.

[42]: Mostly good, but calling it a "record" is WP:EDITORIAL, and saying he held it for 27 years is slight original research of the WP:SYNTH kind.

Conclusion

Given the amount of "failed verification" tags that @BennyOnTheLoose found while checking a portion of the citations, along with the weak performance in the spot check I just did, I think this article needs a full source-text integrity check before we can be confident no issues remain. That is outside the scope of a GA review so I will fail this now. @Lee Vilenski if you do this and renominate, feel free to ping me and I'll try to review it shortly after.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Parrott