Can we get a link or footnote for the Vaso Amendment? What did it amend?
it was a rule from BCA where it changed pool from you only being able to play one pot, to having the option of calling more than one. The formal name for this isn't important, so I've removed this. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)14:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information about the game's invention or popularity?
Only strictly small-time amateur stuff. If there was, it was back in the 1950s or similar, but searching for "Honolulu pool" in old newspapers doesn't bring up much other than adds for city breaks. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)14:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I'm concerned by the shortness of the article; I understand you can only work with the material you have, but I wonder if this wouldn't be better as a section in an article on "Pool variations". That would permit some common terminology to be developed and avoid repetitiveness. Are there other very short similar articles which could be merged with this?
Comment@Mike Christie: I'm just passing by, but here are a couple of suggestions, I'm pinging the reviewer for views as well:
Lede info isn't covered in the rest: According to the Billiard Congress of America, the governing body for billiards in the United States, Honolulu presents players with "an unending kaleidoscope of strategic and shot-making challenges. Nowhere is this quote or description mentioned later, which seems to violate the MoS Guidelines for the lede, IMHO. Per reviewer (see comment lower), maybe rm it in lede and moving to body would be better? Thanks!
I'm confused, but how is CuesUp an RS? GA requirements only need RS for five types of material (2b), and a routine gameplay description certainly isn't by any means controversial. But with an iffy about us, and all of the ref's content covered in better refs, could this be removed (of course, this is my POV)? VickKiang (talk) 10:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Mike Christie that there might be concern on the length. Only coverage of only gameplay seems to be a bit strange. I know this analogy isn't good, but at least for board game/video game-related articles, only having a gameplay section probably isn't good. I've came across another GAN here, with dispute about if it's broad in its coverage or meeting criteria 3a.
Sure, thing is, I believe these games to be independently notable from cue sports. Whilst these are not professional games, if they meet WP:GNG, which I believe they do then they are eligible to be GAs. The video game item wouldn't be considered broad because there would be no mention about how the game was made, which is always true. However, it would be suitably broad if it didn't have a reception section if it wasn't actively reviewed. The GA criteria only states that something isn't a stub. In this case, the other items that would usually be a part of this (from nine-ball) is Governance (which doesn't apply as it's not really competitive), derived games (which there are none) and popular culture (which might be the occasional time it's included in a video game, such as in Virtual Pool 3, but there's only really primary sources about this). Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)13:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I won't insist; I have to say I disagree, but as you say the GA criteria just say more than a stub. (Though I could see a reviewer arguing that this is a stub now, and it'll be even shorter if you end up removing the source queried above.) I'll take another look once you've responded to the other points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is enough to be unquestionably not a stub. Per Xtools, this has 2,021 characters and 357 words, just higher than the 1,500 characters/250 words guideline. But I honestly don't know if the unreliable ref be rm, how long would that be? VickKiang (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
VickKiang, thanks for the comments. Yes, I should have queried cuesup.com -- not sure how I missed that. Technically, yes, the quote ought to be in the body too, but when the article is so short I would be inclined to overlook it as it would feel very repetitive. A better solution might be to add it to the body and delete it from the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, thanks for waiting - I didn't forget, I've been completely without internet for the last week (been at sea). Have got a lot to go through, but I'll make this my priority to fix up tomorrow. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)18:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've covered all of the above - I've also added a different source and cleaned up the article somewhat. I do wish there was some more info on where the game was first played, but I simply cannot track that info down. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)14:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Earwig reveals no issues. Spotchecks:
FN 1 cites "Players must pocket all shots in an indirect fashion to reach a set number of points". Verified, but I noticed that the rules for kicks don't match what we have in the article unless I'm misunderstanding the terms. According to this source a short-rail kick would be legal if the pocketed ball was not pocketed at that end.
Yes, I wasn't being clear. FN 1 is fine, but while reading that source I noticed that the rule for short-rail kicks has an exception. In the body your cite to FNs 4 & 5 states a rule about short-rail kicks that no doubt matches the source, but it doesn't match the definition in FN 1 which is "A kick is legal only if the cushion involved is not adjacent to the pocket in which the object ball falls". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But our glossary says a short rail is the end rail, so a short rail kick would presumably be a kick using the short rail, which is not the definition given here. Am I missing something? It really seems that the two sources are giving different interpretations of the rules. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]