Talk:1974 World Snooker Championship

1974 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: October 13, 2022. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

Passed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 13 October 2022 (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:1974 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 09:16, 7 October 2022 (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

World Snooker Championship established - this needs to be split by a comma. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
with £10,000 prize money. There were 31 entrants. - feels a bit dry. I'd merge this but into one sentence. Maybe The event featured 31 participants, with a total prize fund of £10,000. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lede is a little lacking, maybe we could mention the prelim round. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General

The format section doesn't actually cover how the format works. I.e. how the first round worked. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting for the sessions link is wrong. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses "qualifying" and "preliminary" interchangeably. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was called both in Snooker Scene. I've amended the one instance of "preliminary" to "qualifying". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link respotted black Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hospital , where - stray space. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.[21][22]Cliff Thorburn led 3 - I think it was supposed to go here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended per the three points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we not have any images of anyone other than Reardon? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's an image of Higgins used in the infobox on his page, but I'm not entirely convinced it's a genuinely free image. There are much later images of Thorburn but he only reached the first round. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett,[27] eventually eliminating Bennett - repetitive. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sessions[28] Davis won the match 15–5.[29] - something is missing here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a full stop after "sessions". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link century break. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

] At 8–8 the players were level, - well, duh. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One usage of Snooker Scene is in italics, the next in quotations. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As we state how many frames are in each round, we should also include sessions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually put the dates of the rounds as well. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Williams. Williams - reword. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-finals is a bit dry. Was there nothing more? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker Scene only had about 100 words on Reardon v Davis, and about twice that on the other semi. Some of this is commentary like "somewhat characteristically started to miss badly when the pressure came on"; "three dull frames"; "a dreadful failure"; "romped away"; "inevitably approached a winning margin" that I didn't find very usable. I could add more like further break details, but I think the lack of anything much to say reflects the unspectacular nature of the decisive results. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a plate? I feel like that could have been mentioned in lede/format. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added to lead. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:28, 13 October 2022 (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)} 09:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Lee Vilenski. I've amended the article and replied above. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2022 (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.