Talk:1987 World Snooker Championship/GA1

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.

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

Reviewer: HawkAussie (talk · contribs) 06:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I might help in reviewing this article to see if this might get an Good Article.

Lead

Shouldn't this be numbered in a way on the actual edition (not year). Because we already know that this page is the 1987 edition.
- The issue is that there is some debate what constitutes an entry into the event. It's run from 1927 but had tournaments where they were simple challenge matches, and some that had a handful of competitors. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...as a 66–1 outsider to win, reached the final again. - You could drop "again" and it still make sense.

Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Davis made the highest break of the event, a 127, in the first frame of the final. - You could probably follow the 1986 format for this sentence and go: A total of 18 century breaks were made during the tournament, the highest of which was a 127 made by Davis in the final.

Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

...13 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 16 in the semi-finals - I assume this meant 23 and 26 not 13 and 16?
- No, it says the amount of frames to win is 13 and then 16. A best-of-25 frames match is a first to 13. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying

There were scheduled to be 24 matches in the first qualifying round, - Needs a bit of rewording there.

Amended, hopefully it works better now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also was their any critical matches in the first qualifying round as it seems a bit too brief.

I've had another look at sources and haven't really found anything to add for the first qualifying round. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The youngest player in the competition, Stephen Hendry, made a break of 108, the new highest in that year's qualifying, - Is this really necessary as you have the highest break later on in the section.

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...with players seeded into the round each meeting one of the third round winners - Rewording here.

Amended slightly, but let us know if you have a better phrasing. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...failed to qualify for the event. He was beaten 5–10 by Barry West. - Could merge these two sentences into one.

Done.

...to qualify for the competition for the first time, both being knocked out in the fourth round. - You have already mentioned in a previous sentence that this was the fourth round of qualifying.

Amended.

This isn't a part of the Qualifying section per say, but their isn't any qualifying results compared to other good articles of these championships, I am talking about for an example previous year's championships.

~~I recently got a source that should help with the qualifying results, and will try to include these soon. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)~~ Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First round

..., but was taken to a deciding frame, winning 10–9 - You could change this to "with the match being decided on the deciding frame with Johnson winning 10-9" or something sort of like that.

Amended (using slightly different wording to the suggestion). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...make foul shots, and won 10–7. - Slighty change the end of the sentence to be "shots to win 10–7."
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MacLeod had previously only won one ranking event match in the season. - Is this sentence needed because it slightly seems out of place.

Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...session both on respotted blacks ,... - no space for the comma.

Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...behind second-ranked player... - Missing the word "against"

Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8–1 and 9–2 before winning... - Probably keep the 8-1 lead and not the 9-2 lead.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...foul shots, - What does mean in snooker terms. (Aka defenition)
- Could be many, many things. Could be touching the ball with your body, missing the shot, feathering the cue ball, missing a snooker, going in-off, jumping a ball before an object ball hits a cushion etc. I can link to the cuegloss on first usage. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the final, I forgot to add that Jimmy White is meant to be linked here.

Added wikilink. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second round

but lost 12 of the next 13 to lose - Add frames after 13.

Done.

Five of the frames had been decided on the black, with white winning four of them. - This might be confusing to people who don't play Snooker. Also the w in White is meant to be capitalized.

Corrected "White". Pending

1985 champion Taylor lost 10–13 to Foulds - You have already mentioned that Taylor was the 1985 champion in the previous section.

Amended.

Also could you expand among the previous two sentences instead of just stating the results.

Amended. Lee Vilenski what is a good way of expressing "after needing a snooker"? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I usually say "after requiring foul shots from his/her opponent." Which involves no jargon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter-finals

...over three sessions, on 28 and 29... - Should it be from 28 and 29.

I think the current wording is OK as the matches finished on the 29th. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson took a 48–6 points lead in the final frame with a break of 46, - This sentence is confusing as your bringing points which to that stage isn't mentioned once in the page.
- I don't really see the issue - but I've reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...in three frames in final session. - in "the" final session.

Done.

Semi-finals

The last four sentences in the first paragraph have Fould starting in the sentence. Maybe try and some variation in the sentence openings.

Amended, hopefully this is better. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the first sentence, the second semi is only three sentences long. Maybe you could expand that paragraph for the semi.

I've added some detail about what seems to be a significant turn of events in the match. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final

...had both reached the final from 1947 to 1951... - Link to the 1947 and the 1951 edition of the World Championships

Done. 08:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

...three consecutive finals between 1992 and 1994. - Same here but instead it's 1992 and the 1994 edition.

Done. 08:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Johnson then won three frames in a row, before Davis did the same... - Could modify this so it's "Johnson responded winning three frames in a row with Davis doing the same.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He extended his lead to 6–4 at the start of the second session which finished 9–7. No other frames of importance during that session for it to be only a sentence here.

Added a bit if detail. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson made a break of 52 in the first frame of the fourth session, but left an easy red for Davis who made a break of 35, but left an easy green for Johnson, who cleared to the pink to win. - Probably best to split this into two sentences instead of one long one.

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson led 50–0 in the next frame, and with both... - Probably best to change this to: "In the following frame, Johnson led 50-0..." just to cut the amount of Johnson's at the start of the sentence.

Amended, hopefully better now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main Draw

This is fine

Century Breaks

Where was these breaks during the qualifying section of the tournament as it's only showing the main draw breaks.
- Have you got the refs together for this, BennyOnTheLoose? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - These aren't listed out in the sources I've seen. In terms of century breaks, Pot Black magazine for May 1987, which has coverage of the qualifying, only mentions that O'Kane compiled five century breaks including the 132. There is no list of centuries in either the Rothmans Snooker Yearbook 1987-88 or the Benson and Hedges Snooker Year 4th edition (published for 1987-88), both of which are the editions directly after the 1987 World Snooker Championship. I also checked Snooker: records, facts and champions (1989), and The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker: The Complete Record & History (2004). snookerdatabase.co.uk only has the main event centuries. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

This is fine.

References

This isn't so much needed but could get some newspaper clippings and link them to the references that you have put down so I can check through those references.
- I've checked the Terms of Use of the databases I've used and I don't think it's permissible to send actual clippings. However, you can apply through The Wikipedia Library for access to both newspapers.com (which includes most of the overseas newspapers used here) and for The Times Digital Archive access (via Gale), which would give access to The Times articles used. There is also a very limited preview facility available at the British Newspaper Archive which you could use to check some of the UK local paper references. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, sadly there are quite a few copyright issues with sending clippings outside of those done by companies (such as newspapers.com) themselves. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @BennyOnTheLoose: Yeah it's very loose on that kind of area especially with all of the references to articles. HawkAussie (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Just got to fix those errors and it should be good to go. HawkAussie (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've covered all of the above (or at least left a response.) Let me know if there's anything in particular that needs looking at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that is good to go. Congrats on the GA. HawkAussie (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2020 (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.