Talk:Cribbage (pool)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 01:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. Expect a review within a week; otherwise ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ping as requested Premeditated Chaos. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm the worst. Okay. I have some concerns about the breadth of this article, when compared to other modern cue sport GAs like Nine-ball, Cowboy pool, Slosh (cue sport), and Straight pool. Straight, Cowboy, and Slosh all have origins/history sections in addition to just a description of the gameplay, while this article lacks even that. I understand if the sourcing is lacking, but I think there has to be somewhat more than just gameplay to cover "breadth" and qualify for GA.
    Is there anything additional that could be added to flesh the article out? Otherwise I think this must be a quick-fail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take a look. We are talking apples and spades here. Something like Slosh was once a well played competitive game. Straight pool is still massively competitive. Cribbage is more like playing a game of killer or something you might set up if you were bored of playing actual pool. I've got my book collection at home, so I'm sure there is something about the origins, which would probably be enough. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Online searches are a pain due to the name. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not surprised, unfortunately.
I think whether or not a topic like this can meet the breadth criteria is going to depend on how one reads the rule - whether "broad in its coverage" applies to the article in relation to the topic as a whole, or whether it applies to the article only in relation to what exists in reliable sources. I lean towards the first reading, which means that I feel where the sourcing doesn't cover certain aspects of the topic, the article is not going to be broad enough to hit GA, even when every available source has been plumbed. (My own GA white whale is Jewels of the Sea - hits GNG, but the sources just straight up don't cover background and recording, so IMO it can't hit the breadth requirement for GA).
If you feel my reading of the breadth criteria is off-base, I'm happy to go to WT:GA to get a discussion going about it and/or hand this off to another reviewer, no hard feelings either way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a go, but the people who would know (Shamos, etc) just give rules). I've got some sources that show it was a thing from the 1930s, but it's never been played professionally.

  • Drive-by comment. I found a couple of earlier passing mentions, not that they help much. From "Cues and Miscues", Detroit Free Press, 19 Apr 1914, p.20: "'Doc' Stocking stands ready and willing to cross cues with anyone at cribbage pool, whatever that is."; and "Sport in Alaska" in Ring Lardner's column in the Chicago Tribune, 17 Nov 1915, p.10, which is ancedotal about a complaint note left by a pool hall manager. (looks like a syndicated piece). I think it would be worth opening up the discussion about "the topic" v "what can be found in reliable sources" as mentioned above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#"Broad in its coverage". I didn't mention this GAN by name or ping either of you to avoid tilting the discussion towards being about this nom specifically. I used Jewels of the Sea as a non-GAN example instead. But obviously I'd like to see your opinions. (I've put this nom on hold for now). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lee Vilenski, it seems the discussion at WT:GA is going nowhere despite my attempt to revive it. I'm sorry; I was hoping for a firmer consensus one way or the other. Personally, I don't feel that I can pass this as a GA, but I don't feel fair dropping a fail on you, so I'll change the status to 2nd opinion and step back. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per request I had a look for some history but didn't find anything. Desertarun (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

The game has an unknown lineage, but can be traced back to the early 1900s.[1][2] Whilst being an official variant of pool,[3] it is a game played between frames of more popular cue sports.[4]

References

  1. ^ "7 Jan 1937, Page 4 - The Republic at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  2. ^ "8 Jan 1938, Page 8 - The Hutchinson News at Newspapers.com". Newspapers.com. Retrieved 15 June 2022.
  3. ^ BCA Rules Committee (1970). Official Rule Book For All Pocket and Carom Billiard Games. Chicago, Illinois: Billiard Congress of America. pp. 76–77. ISSN 1047-2444. OCLC 30454628.
  4. ^ Mizerak 1973, p. 63.

Second opinion[edit]

Lee, PMC, I saw the request for a second opinion. I think we can't fail on broadness if we have no evidence that sources exist beyond what's used in the article. I'm currently reviewing Honolulu (pool) at GA, and have (a bit reluctantly) had to come to the same conclusion there. I think both articles would be better off in a larger article that discussed pool variations, but I don't think that's a valid reason to fail a GA, so I'm expecting to pass Honolulu and I can't see a reason not to pass this. The GA conversation you started was a good idea, but there's not a consensus for an interpretation that would allow a fail here, as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PMC, just checking I understand your comment above -- are you handing over the pass/fail decision to a second opinion? If so I'm fine with looking over the article and passing or failing. Or did you just want to get an opinion on broadness and then return to the review? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Handing it over - I don't feel comfortable making the pass/fail decision here. Failing feels unfair as consensus seems to disagree with me, but I don't feel I can rightly pass it either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to make the final decision but as it happens I'm reviewing some even shorter articles so it seems worth having a conversation at WT:GAN. I've started that thread and have pinged you to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I started a conversation at WT:GAN about "broadness" in June, but it got somewhat derailed (imo) by people misunderstanding my argument, and others arguing that we shouldn't have articles on topics that can't be brought to FA. Then it petered out and came to no consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus at the current WT:GA conversation that a short article should not be promoted. I've read through and just have one additional question:

  • FN 2 seems wrong -- pages 120-122 show some hall of fame biographies.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cribbage_(pool)/GA1&oldid=1111423761"