Talk:1970 World Snooker Championship

1970 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: August 30, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Pulman v Owen score

Most books and sites that I've seen record that John Pulman defeated Gary Owen 37–12 in the semi-final of the 1970 World Snooker Championship. However, sources at the time say that Pulman had a 35–13 lead (Birmingham Daily Post, 27 February 1970; Billiards and Snooker, April 1970), and The Times reported on 28 February 1970 that Pulman gained "a decisive lead of 37–13". Kobylecky's International Directory has 37–13 as the result. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1970 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 17:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Sources are reliable; I noticed the discussion on WP:RS about Chris Turner and will abide by the outcome of that discussion; I'm inclined to say it's reliable.

Not an issue for GA, but the background section is disproportionately large for the article. It's over a third of the article by wordcount; more if you ignore the lead. I think it should be trimmed but I won't hold up GA for that.

Trimmed slightly. I'll also have another look to see if there is anything to add to the Tournament Summary section. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to say the total prize fund amount is unknown? We have the individual amounts by round; if anyone wanted to add them up, they could? Or is the issue that we don't know if there was prize money for the first round?

Removed. There is no context in the Everton book other than a statement that the total prize fund is not known; this may be because of the first round match, or perhaps he didn't have the figures to hand. (Although he almost certainly wrote the Birmingham Post article, and he was editor of Billiards and Snooker). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the text we say the quarter finals were best of 71; in the "Main draw" section it says "best of 61".~~

Corrected to 61 in the text. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~What does Haseldine mean by "peculiar running"?~~

I've amended to "the 'peculiar running' of the balls on the table", which hopefully with the quote added from Reardon makes it clearer. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review, Mike Christie, and apologies for taking some time to complete the responses. Oddly, Spencer only spends half a line on the 1970 Championship in his books, and there isn't much more in sources other than fairly routine information about match progress. The discussion about Chris Turner's Snooker Archive has been archived at RSN. Let me know about anything else that is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global-snooker.com

BennyOnTheLoose, since I passed this I noticed that it uses global-snooker.com as a source. Is this a reliable source? Per this page it's the successor to globalsnookercentre.co.uk, but that doesn't help me much. I think I probably let this go through for GA on the grounds that it was a magazine and hence would have had editorial control, but I don't think that's enough since it seems it was just a shortlived online magazine and there's no evidence it's any more than a one-man show. Can it be replaced with another source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie I'll replace these. For a while, I've been meaning to put Global Snooker up on the reliable sources noticeboard for discussion, but I need to dig out the evidence and ownership history properly first. IMO it is reliable for records and statistics, but as it's used on so many articles, a consensus of opinion would be helpful. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; if you remember, ping me to that discussion when you start it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]