Jump to content

Talk:2016 World Snooker Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2016 World Snooker Championship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 21, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
April 1, 2020Good article nomineeListed
August 17, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 3, 2016.
Current status: Featured article

Dubious count

[edit]

I have removed the "It is the 79th edition of the World Snooker Championship" sentence. We have 1927-1940 (14), 1946-1952 (7) 1952-1957 (6 but unofficial), 1964-1968 (7 challenges), 1969-2016 (48) which adds to 82 if we include everything or 76 if we exclude the unofficial ones. Probably the originator didn't realise that there were 7 challenge matches from 1964-1968 although only 4 years appear in the template. 40th year at the crucible seems better and is not open to dispute. Nigej (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live scores

[edit]

People really need to stop adding live scores and orphan flags to the tournament bracket. Wikipedia is not a news service, and scores should not be added until the end of a match, while the flags make the article look incomplete. – PeeJay 21:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck.The same thing happens every year. Semi protecting helps a little but the easiest approach is to do nothing and tidy up in a few weeks time. Nigej (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as tacit approval of removing the flags and live scores. – PeeJay 13:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the live scores. They will vanish automatically, so why bother? Jan D. Berends (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. Wikipedia is not a live news service. – PeeJay 12:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket sizes

[edit]

Surely it should be mentioned somewhere. Lots of players + former players have complained. http://m.bbc.com/sport/snooker/36174937 Mobile mundo (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final Centuries/ Breaks over 50

[edit]

Are we going to show centuries made in various frames in the final? If yes, are we gonna include breaks over 50 aswell?--Ui56k (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Yes and Yes. Nigej (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2016 World Snooker Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
WITHDRAWN
Going to withdraw my nomination. Article isn't where I'd like it to be. Thanks for your 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.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hello! This is my first snooker article I've ever attempted to review. Feel free to correct me if my comments about sourcing/phrasing/terminology are incorrect. If you have any comments/questions as well, feel free to ping me here.

Lead

[edit]
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ding Junhui and Alan McManus set a new record in their semi-final for the most century breaks achieved in a professional match (10), with Ding also setting a new record for the most centuries by one player in a single world championship match (7)" - I'm not sure if the brackets part seem like sidenotes and not part of the actual sentence. Also, now I read it, it does seem long to me. Maybe break it into two sentences? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summary

[edit]

Seeding and qualifying rounds

[edit]
reworded  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First round

[edit]
  • Need source(s) for the dates of the first round and that the matches were best out of 19.
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Best out of 19 isn't 100% confirmed as the number of frames per match fluctuate from 13 - 19. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course it does. A best-of-X matches means the most amount of X. A best of three is a first to two. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second round

[edit]

Quarter-finals

[edit]
  • Snooker.org doesn't back up "26–27 April, played as best-of-25-frames, over three sessions" - new source needed (same issue with above usages).
    • Apologies, I've been linking to the wrong snooker.org site (Årdalen, Hermund. "Results (World Championship 2016) - snooker.org". snooker.org (in Norwegian). Retrieved 13 September 2019.) shows the dates.
  • "comprehensive 13–3 victory" - comprehensive seems like an odd word here, I'd drop it for neutrality.
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "saw him win the match with a session to spare" - redundant as it's already mentioned he won 13–3.
Not all sessions are eight frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i see the source said he won it in two sessions, so assumingly if the match had three sessions, it'd be fine. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC) checkY[reply]
    • "with a session to spare" is also word for word copy.
not a lot I can do "session to spare" is a technical term. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize it was til I googled. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC) checkY[reply]
  • Selby's and Wilson's match source doesn't state it was the 4th time Selby reached the Crucible semi-finals
removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • It also doesn't say the highest break of the tournament made by Wilson during the 20th frame, just the break amount.
I added the source for the centuries in general. Should be plenty. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two problems, the cenutires source is from the wrong year (2015 instead of 2016), plus doesn't mention which frame it was. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alan McManus came from 9–11 behind" - i think 9-11 behind should be flipped.
Scores need to be consistent. Either 9-11 and 13-11, or 11-9 and 11-13. I prefer the original Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and reach his first Crucible semi-final since 1993, as well as his first ranking semi-final appearance since the 2006 Grand Prix." - i suggest breaking this into two sentences for grammar.
  • There's no mention of the 2006 Grand Prix in either source for McManus's first ranking semi-final appearance.
Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)checkY[reply]
  • "became the oldest Crucible semi-finalist" - shouldn't it be second oldest? I know the veteran McNanus source says oldest since Reardon at age 52. I don't mind keeping it this way if it sounds fine.
Oldest since... He wasn't the second oldest (I think that's Fred Davis). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, as the source does say oldest since Reardon. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC) checkY[reply]
  • " 9–1 and 10–4 before Hawkins fought back to within one frame at 9–10." - i think it should be 10-9 to match the other numbers.
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "fought back" - suggest rewording for neturality.
reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)checkY[reply]
  • McManus's and Fu's match source doesn't mention the 10–4 score, only 9-1, 10-9 and 13-4.
reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It also doesn't state it was Fu's second semi-final since 2006 nor Hawkin's missed the opportunity to reach his fourth consecutive semi-finals.
added a cite
I see that it's mentioned in the previous paragraph that Fu made it to his first quarterfinal since 2006. And since this paragraph is mentioning that he also made it to his first semi-final since 2006, I think the quarterfinal one should be dropped. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fu eventually won by 13–11" -> Fu won 13-11 (evenutally doesn't sound right though it's not on the words to watch list).
done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)checkY[reply]
removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)checkY[reply]

Semi-finals

[edit]

Junhui & McManus

[edit]
  • I should note that the snooker.org sources don't mention the dates with that specific link but the results do. Should be 30 April - 1 May. I've only discovered this now, and the rest of the similarly worded sentences in the other rounds are effected too. See the below overall comment.
  • "In the first" -> in the first match
  • "In the first, Ding Junhui was leading Alan McManus 5–0 and 9–3 scoring five centuries in nine frames for Ding, before McManus fought back with three centuries of his own to trail 8–9." long sentence i suggest splitting into two.
    • reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • I think the first half of this sentence needs to be reworded. Something like "Ding Junhui was leading Alan McManus 5–0 and 9–3 while scoring five centuries in the first nine frames." or "Ding Junhui scored five centuries in nine frames to lead over Alan McManus 9–3." I think the centuries part would need to go before the breaks to make sense as the 9-3 and five centuries in nine frames are redundant. Unless you want to say during these nine frames, he scored five centuries and led 9-3.
    • yeah, I reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)checkY[reply]
    • "before McManus fought back with three centuries of his own to trail 8–9." - fought back again doesn't sound neutral. How about scored?
  • "Ding then pulled away to lead 12–8, and finally won 17–11 to reach his first World Championship final." pulled away i'm not sure if that's neutral. How about increased his lead? I also suggest dropping finally.
  • I think either the centuries parts need to be put before the win (specifically Ding's sixth and seventh century).
  • "In the 27th frame, Ding made his seventh century of the match to set a new record for the most centuries made by a player in a World Championship match, beating the previous record of six centuries set by Joe Davis in 1946, Mark Selby in 2011, and Ronnie O'Sullivan in 2013." very long sentence. Two sentences would help for readability.
  • Ding Junhui's semi-final win source doesn't talk about most cenutries in any snooker match, nor mention Hendry's six centuries at the 1994 UK Championship. New source needed.
  • Same source as above doesn't say the ten combined centuries broke the 1999 record with Hendry and O'Sullivan.

Selby & Fu

[edit]

Final

[edit]
  • "The Chinese player also became the first Asian finalist,[58] being broadcast on CCTV-5.[62]" - I assume this was supposed to be two sentences?
  • "Ding won five of the next six frames to trail by only one frame at 7–8" - shouldn't it be five of the next seven frames as the first session ended at 6-2?. Selby won the first frame of session 2, (7-2) then Ding won the next three (7-5), then Ding won two of out of the next three (8-7).
  • "Some frames involved lengthy tactical battles" - tactical is a creative word used by the same source, and the only "tactical" mentioned frame was the final frame. So this isn't accurate.
  • "Ding again fought back" - same issue with fought back not being netural.
  • "On the second day of the final, Ding again fought back to trailing by only one frame at 10–11," - I don;t see a mention of this particular score in a specific part of the match in the source.
  • Jumping from 14-11 to 16-11 without mentioning that Selby won two additional rounds before Ding won three more is an odd omission. The second crown source doesn't really say Selby won frame 26 and 27 though.
  • "Although Ding won three more frames in the evening session – coming from 16–11 behind to 16–14 – Selby eventually clinched the match " - words to watch editoralzing "although" ("eventually" i'd recoomend changing too).
  • "he match ended just minutes after Selby's home city of Leicester celebrated Leicester City F.C.'s first ever Premier League title win." - while it's an interesting trivia fact, seems out of scope and not relevant to the match.
    • Well, considering it covered a massive amount of the television broadcast, as well as the post-match conferences it's quite apt. For reference, Leicester were 5,000-1 outsiders to win the title, Selby later mentioned that he was actually annoyed that he missed the game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason why the audience figures for the finals is only mentioned and not the overall audience for the entire event? It might not be suitable noting here in the final, but elsewhere i think would be useful. Just an extra comment.
    • I don't have a source for the event as a whole. The reason for the final coverage is to show how many fans they were shown to in Asia, considering the previous record for the final was in 1985 at 18.5m. I don't have a source commenting on this, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comment for the main rounds

[edit]

I've just noticed that according to snooker.org, the dates are off. Round 1 ended on 22 April, round 2 started on 22 April, semi finals were from 30 April - 1 May, and the final was 2 May. For semi-finals and finals, the seesions are mentioned but not the best of frame matches. As for Round 1 to Quarter finals, there isn't any sessions amounts nor best of frame matches. See here --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prize fund

[edit]

Main draw

[edit]

Qualifying

[edit]

Century breaks

[edit]

Televised stage centuries

[edit]

Qualifying stage centuries

[edit]

Other notes:

[edit]

Overall:

[edit]

I'll look over the tournament summary/lead afterwards. But so far, there is a words to watch instance, grammar issues, unreferenced and OR citations. Once the other sections have been checked, I'll recheck if I need to add anymore to this part. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this. All looks pretty straightforward, I'll work my way through it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Here's a list of leftover points that need to be discussed/worked on (not including lead/seeding rounds as they are going to be reviewed last):
  • Tournament summary: Annual / official championship since 1927, founded and originated by players in the UK, played by Commonwealth nations, 32 players joined the main draw based on rankings and qualifying rounds

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Once i'll address the comments made from first round to finals, the to-do list will be updated. But from what I've reviewed: there are some grammar issues, OR/unreferenced sentences, words to watch issues, neutrality issues and one instance of an out of scope part. As you've worked on this review while I was completing it, I'm willing to place this review on hold for a week. After a week, I'll reassess whether to keep this on hold or not. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think I've got all of the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the paragraphs above, here's the remaining parts:

  • Lead : sourcing of 2015/2016's last ranking event, source duplication of global audience figures (minor point), Crucible curse reordering. Junhui and McManus's records (new one as of today).

Once a section has been done, I'll collapse it for readability. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this article has been held for a week, I'm making a recap of what's left to be done and seeing whether having an extended hold would be useful. Based on the amount of editing that has happened while I was reviewing and the week it was on hold, I feel that this article is almost there, and is in need of a bit more work. I'm making a recap of what's left to be done, and deciding from there. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second glance

[edit]

Since this review is getting way too long, I'll tick through the above ones, collapse the entire review once done, and move any outstanding comments in this section:

  • In progress (will finish up on the 20th)

Tournament summary

  • Need a new source that says this was the tenth and final event of 2016. The current source is pointing to 2019.

Seeding and qualifying rounds

First round

Second round

Quarterfinals

  • Need a source that says the highest break in the tournmaent was specifically made in the 20th frame by Wilson.
    • Accompanying centuries source is pointing to the 2015 event, not 2016.
  • "and reach his first Crucible semi-final" -> and reached.
  • I don't thinking mentioning it was Fu's quarter final in a decade is needed as the following paragraph talks about Fu's first semi-final in a decade. I think only one is needed, not both.

Semi-finals

  • Ding’s seventh century new record source needed
  • O’Sullivan and Hendry’s six centuries at 1994 UK championship source needed
  • Move source to end of sentence for Selby & Fu 3-0, 5-3, 8-8 for first 2 sessions.
  • Cue break in the 15th frame with a ten minute break source needed.
  • Bundle sources to verify Selby & Fu longest frame passed Maguire & King’s 2009 record.

Finals


Overall issues:

  • Naming for Akani Songsermsawad or Sunny Akani should be consistent in my opinion.


--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your dilligent review MrLinkinPark333, I'm going to withdraw this nomination. You have been great, but I feel this is going a bit beyond the GAN process. It's clearly taking too long! Thank you for your time and patience. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 September 2019 (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.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 World Snooker Championship/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 21:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

That's it on a first run. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski let me know when you're done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man and Lee Vilenski: I have looked over the references, and filled out a few dates and authors. I also found one duplicate ref. epicgenius (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking that one for me. It would have been a good couple days before I could have access to a PC to check it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski do you think you're done now? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes! Sorry, I think I covered all of the above points Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Cheers Lee, promoting. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_World_Snooker_Championship&oldid=1221198608"