Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2018 World Snooker Championship/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 May 2019 [1].

2018 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article follows last April's world Snooker championship, a fantastic 17 day event held in Sheffield. The article has passed through a GA review, and I believe it has the right stuff for an FA nomination. I look forward to addressing any concerns/questions you might have for the article in question. The event was won by Mark Williams who had considered retiring the year prior, having not qualified. Sadly, this article will contain no images of Williams' post match press conference in the nud. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as you know I think the decorative use of flags is inappropriate here. Readers cannot tell just by the graphic which country is meant by each icon. Better off complying with MOS here. Also, I imagine that Williams in the nude, at low resolution, may well qualify for a fair use image, worth investigating. Also have concerns over the accessibility of the final summary table which looks hand-crafted and has no way of screen readers making it usable. Similar comment applies to the other tables in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now that your work has been undone by CitroenLover in direct contravention of MOS. Which is a pity really. Snooker articles are not exempt from MOS I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why I was mentioned in this page? I noticed that every other article using a flag of some sort was using the flagicon template, with one -- the article mentioned here -- using flag. With the flag template being used, it made the page incredibly messy. Please point to the MOS that says "flag" should be used over "flagicon" and I will revert my edit. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I wrote, you'd understand why. See MOS:FLAG. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First I'm hearing of this policy on flag usage. You should probably get a bot to update every article using the wrong template and delete the other template, but I feel that using the {{Flag}} template makes the page very difficult to read, due to the closeness of the "name" of a flag (like SCO) next to people's names, especially in the draw format template section. I reverted my edit. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's been part of MOS for years. And no, I'm not interested in getting a bot to do anything. This is precisely why the overuse (and abuse) of flag icons should be strongly discouraged. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "You" in the context of "whoever manages bots", not you specifically. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, it's not going to happen that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to say it's quite an easy task to change the article from {{flagicon}} to {{flag}}, which I have done. I will take a look at the table for the final - I'm sure I can come up with a version that would be suitable for WP:ACCESS. Is there any other issues you can find with the article that would stop this being a support? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have played with a new template, and used tooltips to denote the winner, which should help with Access. Let me know if there is anything else that needs addressing The Rambling Man. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The flags have been changed back, once again, to the non-MOS-compliant version, so the oppose stands I'm afraid. It looks like this is doomed because of the intransigence of those who appear to know better than the MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is going to fail, sadly, because now there is an edit war over it. I tried to help you out Lee but I got reverted too. You'd think people who care about snooker articles would want an FA, but apparently not.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting really childish now. This a clear case of WP:POINT. As I have stated again and again, there is no evidence whatsoever that the use of {{flagicon}} is something that will block articles like these from reaching FA. It's a carefully chosen template which has accessibility features for ALL readers, even blind ones. I have successfully shepherded a number of sports articles through FAC and it was never even raised during their FAC's. It's clearly no coincidence that it's yet again the two of you who have decided on a course and act like you have more authority than other editors. The most respectful thing to do here is if we would limit ourselves to being editors and address the issues that are raised by independent reviewers instead of acting like we are the reviewers ourselves by "opposing" or "supporting" ourselves.Tvx1 13:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the opposite, what is childish is the continued objection to the MOS and the edit warring to keep personal preferences in place. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite happy for the article to be reverted to the version with {{flag}}, and see what other think. However, as that is the only comment I have had on the article, it seems like trying to make changes to accomodate this would have been the natural thing to do. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you meant the version with {{flagicon}}. That's the one that was used in the long-term stable version before this article was nominated as a FAC. And there were no complaints about problems of understanding the icons. That template was actually designed with accessibility in mind and actually caters to all readers (even blind ones). Past experience with successfully guiding sports articles through FA's has shown me that the usage of this template didn't even raises objections during FAC's, let alone block articles from reaching FA status.Tvx1 19:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists. It matters not one iota what "long-term stable version" existed, this is in direct contradiction of MOS which means it fails FAC criterion 2. As you have been told on numerous occasions. "No complaints" from a handful of regulars is not how we gauge featured article quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS, "Past experience with successfully guiding sports articles through FA's", apparently just the one, 2015 Formula One World Championship, which passed a few years ago with a miraculous support of three. Needless to say, that article contravenes MOS all over the place and should be demoted accordingly, having failed to comply with FA criterion number 2. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've posted a request for input at WT:MOSICON. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As simultaneously a cue sports regular editor (I co-founded WP:CUE, and almost all my GA work is in that topic), and one of the longest-term and most active MoS regulars, and one of the principal authors of MOS:ICONS in the first place, I'm inclined to agree that flags are permissible here (per MOS:FLAGS), since this is an event at which representative nationality is defined for players; and in the reportage about the event, flags are customarily shown on TV, etc. It's kind of the snooker Olympics. However, I agree with The Rambling Man that at very least the country abbreviation (via {{flag}}) should also be present at least at first occurrence; the same guideline is clear about that, too. The little pictures are generally meaningless in most cases to large numbers of readers. Anyway, I do not think this guideline compliance and clarification subthread should in any way derail the nomination. Just fix it and move forward (fix it as in comply with MOS:FLAGS, since FA criterion no. 2 is "It follows the style guidelines"). PS: Accessibility is not the only concern; so is WP:REUSE and WP:PRINT. To the extent possible, our article text needs to make perfect sense and not lose key information if copy-pasted as plain text; ergo the provision of alt text for the blind by {{flagicon}} is insufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I didn't think I'd said they weren't permitted, just the usage several project regulars have fought to maintain against all advice contravenes MOS, despite arguments to the contrary. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REUSE is just a "how-to" guide with regards to printing articles. WP:REUSE is a policy which only details the legal obligation when reusing our content. Neither of them state that reused/printed version of our content have to have identical information being conveyed, let alone that that would be a criteria for an article to become a FA. On the point, I don't feel that {{flag}} is an appropriate template. I do not believe that that one was ever created it to be used in combination with competitor names or any a like. In sports articles that template is best used in article where nations compete as teams and thus only the nations names need to be displayed (e.g. 2018 FIFA World Cup). In a case like this, the resultant flag+country name+player name scheme reduces readability immensely and simply overemphasizes the nationalities. I do not believe for a second that using that template would generate a higher quality article.Tvx1 20:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can "believe" what you like. SMcCandlish nailed it (and you've already been told countless times), that currently the article fails to meet MOS requirements, so it fails basic FAC criterion 2, so it's a quick fail, and the longer you (and/or others) try to perpetuate the misuse of flag icons contrary to MOS, the longer it's going to be before the snooker project sees an FA (it currently has precisely ZERO). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said time and time again. Read the notice on top of MOS. It says to use COMMON SENSE. Also see WP:GUIDELINE, WP:NOTLAW, WP:IAR, WP:PRINCIPLE. MOS is a guideline, not a law. No one can force anyone anywhere to follow it to the letter. Not even in the best quality articles. It's a set of advice on how to best present our contents. The ways detailed in it are only examples on how to deal with these situations. That doesn't mean there aren't any other solutions to achieve the goal of the MOS. The goal here is to ensure that all our readers can find out the meaning of these icons. And {{flagicon}} is an interactive template actually designed to achieved that. Using {{flag}} is not the only alternative we have here either. In fact it's the worst choice since it reduces readability dramatically. There are other choices available though. We could for instance choose to extract the explanation of the flags out of the actual tables by creating some sort of legend or list of the nationalities. To name an example, 2019 PDC World Darts Championship includes a table with the represented nations.Tvx1 12:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just about time we accepted the advice of the MOS, SMcCandlish puts it better than I could. Fix it and move on, all the disruption to the article to make it non-compliant with MOS needs to stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I feel we do currently implement that advice. We do respect that part of MOS in assuring that all readers can find out the icons' meanings through the use of a template that was carefully thought out to be accessible to everyone. Using {{flag}} is simply the worst possible alternative.Tvx1 11:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tvx1, you keep bandying about shortcuts as if you've fully absorbed the contents of the pages to which they point and WP norms for their interpretation, but you clearly have not. Any guideline and even any policy, aside from legal ones imposed on us by WP:OFFICE actions, can have exceptions (see WP:P&G), when IAR conditions apply – when ignoring a rule is necessary to objectively improve the encyclopedia. Doing unhelpful things with tiny flag icons does not qualify. Otherwise we would and could have no such guideline as MOS:ICONS in the first place. It is not and cannot possibly be sufficient that you just like them and prefer your way of doing them. Your way is not common-sensical, as has already been explained to you in excruciating detail. Some indication (abbreviated or full) of the country name also has to be present, at least at first occurrence, because these tiny pictures are meaningless to many people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator

Does anyone have any other outstanding issues with the article, other than the flag discussion above? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless we resolve the accessibility issues, including the flag icon problem, there's not much point in going too much further to be honest. It can't pass with the various MOS failures in place. I'd be delighted to review the article in detail, but only once we've got a commitment to fix the issues and that project members won't simply and disruptively restore it to their preferred version over the guidance from MOS. It's a real shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had addressed the accessibility issues with the table for the final - which should now pick up on screen readers. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And many previous FAC's prove your claims to be wrong. I don't know why you are so unwilling to admit that. If you are going to personally block this article from getting FA status than you're the one who'll be disruptive. Such an action would amount to WP:POINT. I agree with Lee that we should move on with the review and focus on matters which are actually serious issues.Tvx1 11:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boring. Compliance with MOS is important and those who continually and disruptively edit to remove compliance with MOS are the problem here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's actually sanctionable. No one is required to write new material in compliance with guidelines (we don't expect new editors, for example, to have read any of them at all yet), but it's disruptive to undo compliance by other editors, and it's flat-out WP:TE and WP:POINT to do it programmatically with some kind of "my way or the highway" or "style warrior" agenda. See also WP:CONLEVEL and numerous ArbCom decisions: wikiprojects are nothing but pages at which editors with a shared interest gather round to discuss things and (hopefully) do article assessments. They have no authority beyond that of any other random editors, they do not WP:OWN the articles they say their project scope covers, they are not WP:VESTED editors in any topic or at any page, and they cannot make up their own divergent rules against site-wide ones. If someone thinks there's something wrong with MOS:ICONS and its handling of flags in sports topics, the way to change it is to propose a change at WT:MOSICONS, not to try the WP:FAITACCOMPLI and WP:GAMING approach of just defying it at article after article until in hopes of WP:WINNING by wearing out everyone else. I said above that this should just get fixed and shouldn't derail the nomination, but it's clear that someone has dug a foxhole, so I think this probably does nuke the nomination. It's one thing to have a legit IAR reason to diverge from a guideline on rare occasions for real reasons – that other editors buy, not just in your own imagination – but this is just misuse of mainspace as an anti-guideline lobbying tool. This should be re-FAC'd at some point, when Tvx1 has moved on and isn't using it as a prop for activism against P&G material he doesn't like.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I feel bad for the nominator since this looks like an interesting article and I can't remember a snooker article ever being nominated in the 11 years I've reviewed articles at FAC. Unfortunately, a situation like this is very discouraging from a reviewer's point of view because until a resolution is found, any efforts we put in are secondary concerns to the flag issue that has sucked up the energy here. I will offer a few quick comments, since I don't want a new nominator like Lee to feel that this has been a waste of time and become discouraged from coming back to FAC in the future.

  • First, I must say that I don't think the flag issue is a hill worth dying on, as far as FAC is concerned. If it were my work, I'd just fix them to be compliant with the MoS and move on, but apparently there's outside resistance to that. Assuming that this won't pass in the end, this is an issue that will need to be hashed out on the article's talk page before a second nomination. If you can show a strong consensus for the flags being the way they are now, you can bring that to a second FAC and at least make a case for them. That isn't the case now, however, and I'd advise that one article being a certain way doesn't automatically make it the right way. Even FAs can have flaws, as perfect articles are few and far between.
  • As for things you can fix now, a cite tag has been added to the last sentence of the section on the final. That will definitely need to be fixed for this article to meet the FA criteria.
  • Reference 19 goes to a YouTube page. Is this an officially licensed YouTube channel? If not, they probably don't have the rights to show the content and we shouldn't be linking it to. If that's the case, you'll need to find another reference for this content.
  • The reference publishers have a weird mix of italicized and non-italicized publishers. I'm seeing inconsistencies in how publishers such as The Independent and BBC Sport are handled. FAC wants citations to be formatted consistency when possible, so I'd suggest maintaining a consistent style for each throughout the list of citations. In addition, I'd italicize The Guardian in ref 54, since that is a print publication and those are typically italicized.
  • In the lead, I see "Crucible Theatre" and "Crucible theatre". Again, this is an inconsistency that should be dealt with. In this case, it looks like "Crucible" is used as shorthand for the arena after the first usage, so the non-capitalized "theatre" could just be removed entirely. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments Giants2008 - I appreciate the productive comments. First, I've gone through the article and changed all first rounds (and first instances of flags to {{flagathlete}}, which should be MOS consistent! Realistically this has already gone through tonnes of talk pages, but it seems as though it's still an issue. However, I don't see how this current version could be considered worse than any other version in terms of aesthetics.
  • I have cited the statement in the final. I believe there used to be a citation there, but was removed.
  • ref removed - was already cited anyway
  • I'll go through the full list tomorrow and make sure it's consistent.
  • I have changed this to the correct formatting. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I think Giants puts it very well in his initial comments above; one sympathises with any nominator trying to do the right thing and being pulled in different directions by supposed supporters. Unfortunately it's taken over three weeks for this review to begin to move past the MOS issue, and that doesn't fill me with confidence that consensus to promote is going to occur any time soon. I'd like to archive this and see how things go over the next fortnight or so outside the spotlight of the FAC process, after which I hope the style arguments will be well and truly put to bed and the article can get a clean start here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2018_World_Snooker_Championship/archive1&oldid=898350742"