Talk:1975 World Snooker Championship/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2023 (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.

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 18:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are so easy, I might as well grab the rest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As with 1979, comparing this to 1980 as an FA in the same area.

Not sure that the founding of snooker is necessary - perhaps replace with the same "World Snooker is the preeminent tournament" sentence from the 1980 one that you put into the 1979 one
It feels like some of the content from Format could more properly be put in the Overview section, including the Park Drive absence and the information about the promotion, since that isn't really germane to the format of the tournament
This isn't a hill I'll die on, but I wonder if the Schedule section might be better placed below the prose, similar to the way the table-heavy sections are in the 1979 and 1980 articles
"This was the only year that Rex King, Ron Mares and Phil Tarrant ever participated in the main Championship." - Not sure I understand the significance of this. Are they notable players who quit after one tournament for particular reasons? Is it unusual for players to only ever play one World Cup? Otherwise, why call it out?
"In a match that was played against a noisy background of numerous slot machines" - I'm assuming this was at a casino. Do we know the name of the venue? If not, can we at least mention it was a casino? And was this the only match played at this venue?
"He Hardly missed a thing" - is the capitalization here from the source?
Remainder of sections are basically statistical and are in line with the standard set by the 1980 article, so no concerns there.
Images are appropriately used, freely licensed, and properly captioned
No concerns about sourcing, which is in line with other snooker articles
Taking the offline sources on GF, I have no concerns with the spot checks on online sources
No CV or close paraphrasing issues either

Just like 1979, this is a pretty clear pass in its current state. Treat the above as suggestions for improvement. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2023 (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.

Reply to GA review

Many thanks, PMC. I've implemented the suggestions. We usually try to include the names of players making their debut, and it seemed just as easy to menton that for King, Mares and Tarrant it was their only entry. It's not particularly rare, but this sort of thing is sometimes mentioned in sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha! I think it was the phrasing that threw me, but I see where you're coming from. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]