Talk:1979 World Snooker Championship/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:33, 9 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) 06:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dibsing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this in comparison to 1980 World Snooker Championship since that's an FA and I don't know snooker very well.

1980 has a sentence about this being the preeminent snooker tournament that's absent here - not a fail criteria by any means but worth noting for consistency
1980 has the prize fund as a subsection of the overview/background - any reason this is different?
"Stevens whitewashed former champion John Pulman" - most snooker terms are helpfully linked, but not this. Can it be?
No other gripes through the Qualifying section. Prose is generally tight
"priced at 6–1" is priced an accepted synonym for having odds? I've never seen it, but then I'm not British
This article moves at a great clip. I love the way you introduce interesting details like the lager cure, but generally keep the early match summaries crisp.
Great use of the pull quote from Everton about Griffiths, I can just picture it
Again, I can find no fault with the match descriptions in the Semi-finals and Finals sections. We move along smoothly without getting bogged down in detail but without being too dry. I don't know a thing about snooker but I was able to follow the tempo of the match reasonably well.
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

There's a few nitpicks that might make the article more perfect, so to speak, but this is a clear pass in its current state. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:33, 9 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.