Talk:1976 World Snooker Championship

Missing info

The results appear to be incomplete. Willie Thorne and Jackie Rea win their matches in the second qualifying round yet don't appear in the tournament proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs) 20:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well nice catch. It's either, that there was a third qualifying round (for which the results are missing) or they had to withdraw for the tournament for some reason. According to Snooker Scene, the last 16 was the first round. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 20:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There was a third qualifying round according to the records I have: David Taylor beat Jack Rea 8-7 and Jim Meadowcroft beat Willie Thorne 8-5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.8.15 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Source? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello I was disallowed from editing in this talk section for until 24th May for reasons I'm not yet sure of - did I breach any copyright in some way? - so it's only now that I'm able to reply. I've as yet been unable to ascertain my source for the above because I have held much of this information for so long that the origin of a few earliest items are lost in the mists of time. I did ascertain that the qualifying competition for the 1976 World Championship took place at the end of March and start of April that year,and the championship itself ran from 13th to 23rd April,with the final taking up the last 4 days of that (source: The Times). The 2 results do appear in the 1982 Guinness Book of Snooker and in the 1990 Rothmans annual but are not in the 1991 Rothmans annual (the last of the series to be published)! At the moment the only ways I can think of checking it out are it's possible that one of the national newspapers (probably broadsheet most likely) from the time may have carried it,and it may be in the back issue for the respective edition of Snooker Scene magazine which can probably be ordered.

Although I posted the qualifiers from up to and including 2004 I do also have the ones for all the years since as well as well as full results of all major tournaments.

I hadn't had any specific plans to put anything up online unless asked but my posting of all these qualifying rounds results on these pages was that I was exactly intended as a FYI move for anyone who wanted to know anything about this because I wasn't aware of the information being available anywhere on the Web,although it is obtainable in the Cuesport Book of Snooker from 2004. I have since found it online on a site called CueTracker![Ralph] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.8.247 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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:1976 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 18:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

These are so easy, I might as well grab the rest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Same as the others - using 1980 as the standard to compare to.

• I think the lead could be trimmed a touch. The details of what Reardon wanted changed, and of the issues with Charlton's table, are probably not necessary and could be reduced to something like "During the 1976 finale, Reardon made several complaints about the environment, which was adjusted to accommodate him. Charlton had complained earlier about a table, which was found to be non-standard, invalidating his break of 137." (Obviously it doesn't have to be that wording exactly)
  • Alternately (having read farther into the article now and seeing that Reardon made other complaints), you could do a short paragraph about players reporting issues with the environment
• No gripes through to the last paragraph of overview - the whole para is about the sponsorship, and then the last sentence is about the venue. Can we move that elsewhere? I just realized that it doesn't mention Middlesbrough Town Hall, and Wythenshawe Forum in the actual body until much later, so maybe a paragraph about the venues could be in order.
• Again, I compliment your ability to condense matches down neatly while pulling interesting highlights without overdoing them. It's a nice balance.
• First paragraph in Final is very long, I would suggest trying to find somewhere to split it if possible
• "He won the 31st frame after needing snookers." Maybe it's just that I don't know the sport, but this sentence doesn't seem to flow right. He needed snookers to do what?
• "Timms awarded Higgins a free ball" do we know what for? A foul of some kind, I'm assuming?
• "his fifth title victory at with a session to spare." some words are missing here I think
• No further prose gripes
• That's it - the rest is tables and stats looks fine to me
• 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

As with the other WSC articles I've reviewed, this is sufficient to pass GACR in its current state, and the rest are suggestions. (I would stress the first two suggestions, even if you make no other changes). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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.