Talk:1949 World Snooker Championship

1949 World Snooker Championship 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.
Review: June 22, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Snooker High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 22 June 2024 (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:1949 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 21:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 20:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

same venue; Conrad Stanbury qualified to join seven other players in the main tournament. - I feel like if you didn't know it was an eight person tournament this might be a bit confusing. Perhaps split into two sentences and spell it out. there was a qualification tournament... There was eight participants, seven who automatically qualified, with Conrad Stanbury winning the qualification tournament

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't actually state why there was eight players who received a bye, or what the actual details was, so it's hard to follow. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added something to support the numbers. As usual, there is no explanation in sources as to the rationale for who was placed in the main draw and who had the qualify. Even The Billiard Player has nothing else. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

third year running - I get that people use that wording in regular language, but something like "third successive year" is a bit more formal. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davis became the second player to successfully defend his first world title, after Joe Davis in 1928 - perhaps state he is his brother just to avoid confusion as they have the same last name. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lede is quite short, so I think you could easily mention the BACC. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added, along with a mention of Stanbury's run in qualifying. I couldn't see anything else of much interest to add; the sources don't give a lot of detail. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General

I think there needs to be at least a sentence or two mentioning how the event was played (i.e. a eight person knockout tournament, plus a five (well, four) person qualification tournament, and how people were seeded. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, added as much (little) detail as sources permit. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably merge that into schedule and make a format section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could do, but given how little there is, do you still advise this? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just a sentence somewhere explaining it was an eight person knockout tournament? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

25–30 April, 2–7 May 1949 - what happened in the middle? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 May was a Sunday, but I couldn't find a source that said this was why there was no play on that day. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the qualifier winning three matches in a row 18-17 is amazing and it's completely brushed over. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it didn't attract much comment in sources - best I could find was a rather understated comment in The Billiard Player. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bit about consecutive century breaks in the semi-finals which could also be mentioned in the lede. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that records aren't going to be fantastic for something so long ago - is there no mention of total century breaks? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. Even Cuetracker and Kobylecky's book have incomplete details. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After 13 dead frames on 7 May - the WP:PIPETRICK doesn't work on the cuegloss template sadly. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

"the 'compleat' snooker player", - am I missing something, or is this just misspelled? Perhaps use {{sic}} instead. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's in reference to The Compleat Angler. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to handle this - perhaps we should just say that he was called a complete snooker player if we aren't sure if it's a misspelling or an illusion to something specific but we don't know. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the main draw, the scores are bolded, but not the players - any reasons? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

winning the exciting final frame. - promo. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. (The Times report has "exciting last" frame.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry, I totally forgot I signed up for this one. I'll take a look now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lee Vilenski. I don't have a lot of time available for editing at the moment, but should get to this in the next few dys. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I've replied above. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.