Talk:John Spencer (snooker player)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 23 January 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: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

before turning professional in February 1967 - infobox says 1968. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the year that the event reverted to a knockout tournament - whilst I think this is important from a historical point of view, it's not all that important to a reader about the person (in the lede at least). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from lead. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to mention this previously, but MOS:CUE says we should actually capitalise "World Champion" and similar, even when not describing the event. Not sure on my thoughts on this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amended the pharasing in the lead (to included "Championship"_; and in the other place I could see it, to "all the World Champions since 1969". MOS:SPORTCAPS says "Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources" but I'm not sure how one is going to prove "usually". It also says " Generic usage is not: a three-time world champion," so I'm not sure that this change was necessary. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

maximum 147 break - I usually use "maximum break of 147" to avoid confusion. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pockets on the table did not meet the required specifications - could probably shorten and say the tables weren't official, or that the table wasn't uniform. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pending - I'm not sure either of those suggestions quite hit the mark. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Rodney Baggins for advice on this point. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for pinging. Personally, I think it's fine as it is, but could maybe change to "...as the event was using non-templated tables with oversized pockets." Maximum break article says "the event was using non-templated tables" and the given source (WWW Snooker archive) says "the table had oversized pockets" so I just combined the two. I can't believe there are no other sources that would help provide a clearer description of this. People might wonder what a 'non-templated' table is. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Rodney Baggins. I went back to Snooker Scene for February 1979, which unsurprisingly has more detail than other sources: "A certificated referee, Nobby Clarke of Ipswich, was officiating and the public was present but the pockets were not tested for size by the all important official B&SCC templates before the table was dismantled. The B&SCC were quick to offer their templates and various sets were in the hands of snooker firms in the area, but with no one taking responsibility for the matter the table was never tested." Apparently the informal consensus was that the pockets were "easier than standard with the fall of the slate at the pocket openings helpfully rounded". ("Spencer first in Holsten Lager International", p.7) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word that you'll have this worded as it should be - it's hardly a big deal, it just seemed like odd wording on first read. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

before turning professional in February 1967 - I think to prevent people having to do the maths, and it being so rare he was so old when turning professional we should add it here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added. (Though the real rarity was anyone turning professional, given that the previous one was 16 years earlier). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General

I feel like there's enough info for the "early years" to be split up and be amateur and professional Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

finally lifted - I'm not sure "finally" is fair, considering he won it on the third attempt. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the new champion's display was a revelation. His long potting, his prodigious screw shots even when cue-ball and object-ball were seven or eight feet apart, his uninhibited use of side, his bright attacking style, even the mere fact that here was a bright new face, made Spencer's win a memorable one." - this is quite a long quote - can we split it up? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a couple of things but I think it works much better to retain the original together - I've applied MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Happy to hear any specific proposals. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

semi-final by 33–37 on a poor-quality table - "by" is superfluous. Mentioning the table might be NPOV without addition. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. (The attribution about the tab;e would have been to Everton. There are some quotes by Reardon about the table in 1970 World Snooker Championship, but Spencer skips from 1969 to 1971 in his autobiography.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

claim the $5,000 prize - no need to link the currency. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link for "parachute jump" goes to a ride, not a jump. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:27, 6 January 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.