Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2019 Champion of Champions/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 March 2020 [1].

2019 Champion of Champions

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a professional snooker non-ranking tournament from November. The contesting players all won tournaments from the year prior to the tournament. The event featured a record number of century breaks during the best-of-19-frames final and ended with a 10-9 win for Robertson, who had mathematically lost the final two frames earlier. It was one of my most favourite finals, an absolutely high class event. It also featured the champions of the senior and ladies world championships for the first time ever. Both 57 year old Jimmy White a frame away from beating the world number one Ronnie O'Sullivan, and Reanne Evans a frame away from defeating 2005 world champion Shaun Murphy.

The article has been through the GA process, and I hope to be able to fix any issues that might occur during the FAC process. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a key for this below the table (should have done so earlier). The one for John denotes that John had won another event, but Maguire had not, but it's the only doubles event on the list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case Ronnie O'Sullivan and others should be marked. The formatting is inconstant --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 17:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. The items in grey are ones that were originally qualification events, but as the person who had won them had already won a tournament; it no longer acted as one. If there had been 16 different winners earlier in the season, some events would no longer be a part of this list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's an issue, but it's pretty much standard as a red hand flag for snooker items. See official website, snooker.org etc. I've never seen it be an issue or controversial, but I'm certainly no expert. If there was a historic issue, it would be something that showed up when searching for Northern Ireland Open and Dennis Taylor, but I didn't find a single different search on a (admittedly short) search. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]

(Note that I intend to take WikiCup points from this review.)

  • It was the ninth Champion of Champions event, which was first held in 1978 strikes me as rather odd.
I've gone into more detail in the prose. It was played in 1978, then in 1980 and annually since 2013. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a non-invitational event, it carried no world-ranking points is not brought up in the body, nor is it cited.
Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph in the lead, between Ronnie O'Sullivan ... Judd Trump in the final. contains a lot of names and is a bit choppy. How about merging the Robertson v. Trump sentences into a single sentence?
I've merged these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article could stand to have more images in it.
I've added a second image. I'm not sure if there is much scope for much more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John M Wolfson - thanks for taking a look, I've addressed the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what else I can find soon. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John M Wolfson do you have anything more for me? Thanks for looking at this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

Looks like a comprehensive and suitably written account of the event.

  • Is there any reason to not populate defending_champion in the infobox? (Doesn't appear in the articles for earlier championships either.)
  • Some info from Snooker Scene (December 2019 that might be worth adding):
There were 784,000 viewers for the final on ITV4[1]
O'Sullivan had an average shot time of only 13 seconds in his match against Higgins.(Same source, page 19.)
(Re: Evans' comments about the disparity between prize money for men and for women) - the £12,500 that (twelve times womens's champion) Evans won at this event was more than double her previous highest event winnings.(Same source, page 16.)
  • I'm not sure if there is a convention, but in the Prize Fund section, should it be Semi-finalists (plural) rather than semi-finalist etc.?

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look Benny!

  • Sure. Defending champion is a term used for defending champion before the event finishes. The moment they are eliminated from the tournament they are no longer a defending champion. Consensus is that after the event, this should not be populated at all (even if it were to be won by the previous winner).
  • Added. Any more details? I don't have a copy of snooker scene, so who authored the passage?
  • Not sure how I would organically say that. Does the text use anything to compare this too that I could use?
  • I've added this to her mention in the prose.
  • I changed this in line with prior FAs. This should be Semi-final etc. This is the position that the player reached, not the placements for prize money. There are more than one quarter-finalists for example, but the prize is for reaching the quarter-finals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications.
  • For the viewing figure (author Clive Everton), the article adds that it was the second-highest figure for a non-terrestrial channel, behind Liverpool v Man City on Sky, but not for what period - maybe for that day?
  • Phil Yates is the author of the other Snooker Scene sections, but they don't really have separate titles.
  • For shot time, World Snooker publishes data at http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/TourPlayers/Index/14128 for context if you want to use that. (O'Sullivan is quickest with an overall average of 16.65 seconds; Ebdon slowest with a 30.66 second average.) Cheers, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose - I've done a little work. I still don't think there is enough weight for the AST to get more than a general mention. Hopefully this is all you have for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose Yes, that's it from me. Thanks for the responses. Best, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Robertson triumphs in Champion of Champions". Snooker Scene. Halesowen: Snooker Scene Ltd. December 2019. p. 16.
Could I get a "support" to help the eventual closer? You also pinged yourself as an FYI. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rodney Baggins

[edit]

I've done a bit of copyediting on the article and here are my FA review comments for your attention:

Lead
  • Might it be better to put the prize fund sentence at the bottom of the lead, at end of 2nd para?
    • Done.
  • "having required foul shots from his opponent in the 18th frame." - not sure what you're getting at here! Was this an important turning point where Robertson almost lost the match? Is there a better way of saying this? Also, there is no mention of this in the description of the final in the Knockout stages section below, which only mentions foul shots required by Trump in the 17th frame. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that should have said Robertson required foul shots (reworded in prose) in frame 18, or we would have lost the match. It was a crucial part of the match, as without foul shots, Trump would have won 10-8. I have reworded this to make this more sensible. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tournament format
  • "first held in 1978,[1] and annually since 2013" > "first held in 1978,[1] and held annually since 2013" (or use the word "contested" to avoid repetition of "held"?)
  • "The 2019 Champion of Champions featured 16 winners of events from the previous 12 months on the World Snooker Tour" - isn't that the case every year and therefore applies to the tournament as a whole, not just the 2019 edition? If so, then it should really be used as a general statement in present tense, i.e. "The tournament features 16 professional snooker players who have won various events over the previous 12 months..."
  • "The event was broadcast on ITV4, and organised by Matchroom Sport." - organising the event comes before broadcasting it chronologically speaking, so I'd prefer "The event was organised by Matchroom Sport and was broadcast on ITV4."
  • "with the semi-finals and final played on 9 and 10 November." - this is important, I think you have the dates wrong - should be "with the semi-finals played on 8 and 9 November and the final on 10 November."?
  • "with those in the opening round being best-of-7-frames" - strictly hyphens shouldn't be used here as the construct is not being used as a predicative compound modifier, but I'm not going to argue the toss over this. Also "group finals and semi-finals best-of-11-frames" shouldn't really have hyphens, but "played as a best-of-19-frames match" is ok because here it's used as a predicative compound modifier!
  • "Having defeated Kyren Wilson in the 2018 final 10–9, Ronnie O'Sullivan automatically qualified for the event" - do we really need to mention Wilson and the final score? Why not just say "As the defending champion from the 2018 event, Ronnie O'Sullivan automatically qualified for the 2019 Champion of Champions."
Qualification
  • "would take a place in the Champion of Champions" - do they get offered a place that they have to formally accept? If so, this should be "would be offered a place in the Champion of Champions"
  • In table, "2019 World Championship Runner-up" isn't a tournament, it's just indicating the runner-up of the 2019 World Championship, so the entry should really be "2019 World Championship (runner-up)"
  • The last 2 columns look very odd because they are auto centre aligned and nothing lines up. Would it not be clearer if the cells were reinstated and the players placed next to their respective events as appropriate? Or maybe just use valign=top so the info isn't floating around aimlessly?
  • Is there a reason the first 16 events are not in chronological order? Is it to do with their importance and the way the qualifiers end up being seeded or grouped? Worth mentioning the relevance of the event order?
    • That's exactly it. "In the event of any of these players meeting multiple qualification criteria, the winners of subsequent tournaments on the list (in the order shown below) would take a place in the Champion of Champions". So, if the first 16 tournaments had different winners, then the winners of the ones in the list below that did not qualify and so on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest using a thick line underneath the 16th event to show the cut-off point?
Tournament summary
  • Would it be worth including a simple table at the top of this section showing the four groups so it's clear what we're talking about, rather than expecting the reader to go down to the main draw tree to see the groupings there?
  • Need to state that each of the four groups competed on its own separate day and the group finals were included on the same day as the group first-round matches - so basically each group was done and dusted on one single day. Or this info could be added to the Tournament format section above?
Main draw
  • "Numbers in brackets show the four seeded players" - this is the only mention of seeds in the whole article. Should we not bring it up in the Tournament summary section? You have not explained how seeds 1 to 4 are decided.
  • In the first column, the group headings should be above each pair of matches in the tree, not inbetween them.
  • I anticipate some slight confusion over Group semi-finals/finals vs. main semi-finals/final - would it be better to head the first two columns "Last 16 (group first round)" and "Quarter-finals (group finals)"?
References
  • The Champion of Champions Snooker refs. (e.g. 5, 6, 7, 13, etc.) are dated in the citations but these dates don't show up in the displayed articles, just in the source code, so should we bother to cite the date if it can't be seen?
I don't see an issue here. It's in the metadata for the item, which is as equivilent to a publishing date that isn't on a book or newspaper. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 22. don't need World Snooker at end of title
  • 37. What is the point of this ref? It just says "No matches registered". Do we need to pull up an archive?
Indeed, fixed it with the list of results, which was the correct ref.

Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lee, I'll go through your comments and feed back shortly – there are still a few things I'm not sure about. I'm very embarressed to say that before this I hadn't even heard of the Champion of Champions tournament, so thank you for introducing me to it. Maybe it's a good thing that I came to this article with no prior knowledge of the event! Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding comments...
  • You said the players are "given" a place, but as it's an "invitational" event this would imply that the players are invited, i.e. "offered" a place!? Just a question of semantics but I thought I'd mention it again just to make sure.
  • The last two columns of the Qualification table are better now they are top aligned, but unless you are using a small enough display font, the names and dates don't line up horizontally due to text wrapping. So I still think a "cellular" approach would ultimately be the best solution!
  • I still don't understand why the first 16 events in the table are not in chronological order. For example, 2019 World Snooker Championship is 4th entry down even though its final was on 6 May 2019, so if the list were chronological it would come 11th in the list, after the 2019 China Open whose final was 7 April 2019. Then it's all chronological again until you get down to 2018 Northern Ireland Open. So I'm wondering: is it because the three Triple Crown events are considered the "most important" events and need to come near the top (after the C of C defending champion)? I thought maybe the top four determined the 4 seeds but that's apparently not the case. Still can't fathom that one...
    • I'm not 100% sure. It's simply how it's written at the official website. That's the official list of qualification. It was split into 6 sections as per [championofchampionssnooker.co.uk/players/].

It's 1) Triple Crown + Previous years winner 2) Bigger tournaments 3) Home nations series 4) Some smaller ranking events (and world runner-up) 5) World Cup 6) Additonal.

There was this article about the 2017 event that went into slightly more detail, but I don't think the same exists for this season. I hope I've made this more clear. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still wondering how seeds 1 to 4 are decided and I think it's a fairly important question. Can you look into it?
And a few more issues remaining in References...
  • 3. Not sure why your script changed ESPN from publisher= to work=
  • 15. missing date=21 October 2019
  • 16. I think you missed this: final version of article has title "Champion of Champions day one results and report: Neil Robertson wins Group 4 after beating Shaun Murphy"
  • 18. No url link included and it's exactly the same citation as ref.37
  • 32/35/38. I wouldn't bother to include an author for these refs - Hermund Årdalen is included in the source code for refs 5 & 7 as well but we're not citing his name for those two refs, so we need to be consistent one way or the other. As the snooker.org sources are just a record of matches/results, I don't see any reason to specify an "author", he's probably just the guy that compiled the data (as opposed to being someone who wrote an article for example) and his name doesn't show up on the webpage anyway.
  • 38. Why does it say this ref. is in Norwegian? It looks English to me, although it does give a translate box when you first open it for some reason. Ref.35 also says it's in Norwegian (even though it isn't) but this one doesn't display a translate box - how curious!

Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee, I'm happy to support this article now. Just a couple of things to point out:

  • Qualification section states that there were 28 tournaments, but that is not the case. There are actually 26 tournaments on the list, with two spots available at the World Cup (two winners) and two at the World Championship (two finalists) giving a total of 28 spots. Check this in the ref. [2]
  • There's no online link to the articles in refs 21 & 29. Is that just because the Snooker Scene magazine has no online presence?

Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SMcCandlish

[edit]

This looks quite tight, especially after all the above. My input may all be pretty minor and nitpicky (mostly copyediting and clarity), having arrived late on the scene.

  1. I would change "for sponsorship reasons" to "for sponsorship purposes", which can have a slightly different implication (we're talking about the context in which it is used, not the rationale for the usage).
  1. "World Snooker" in the lead needs to be linked. Non-experts won't know what that quite means, and it might even been seen as incorrect capitalisation until they learn it's an organisation.
  2. "the prior snooker season" might be useful to link to the season article, too, though I wouldn't insist on it.
  3. This could be better as a single sentence, without repetition of the year in it: "The tournament featured 16 participants who had won World Snooker events throughout the prior snooker season. In 2019, winners of both the World Seniors Championship and Women's World Championship competed at the tournament for the first time." Maybe "... season, and for the first time they included winners of ..."? I don't feel too strongly about this one either. I think it's just telling us that its 2019 again that rankles.
  1. I would use {{cuegloss}} on the first occurrence of "frame" and "match" (at least in the body, maybe not in the lead; we don't want every word blue in there), as these have specific meanings in snooker which may not be obvious to those not ardently following the sport (even if they are big into a related one like pool; "match" often has a broader meaning in pool, and "frame" tends not to be used much). Update: I see that the first occurrence of "frame" after the lead is so linked, but not for "match".
  1. "20 century breaks" – Is that any kind of record?
  1. "As an invitational event, it does not carry any world ranking points." This point may not need to be made except in the main body, at least not in terms so repetitive in the lead then body. If it's important to have lack of ranking points in the lead, maybe just state it without the lead-in clause, and move "invitational" somewhere else in the lead, e.g. "an invitational, professional snooker tournament". [Aside: Strangely, we don't have somewhere to link "invitational", which I was going to suggest; I've raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Missing conceptual article: Invitational competition.]
  2. "The 16 qualifiers were split into four groups of four players" may be a little confusing for non-fans; maybe something like "qualifying rounds"? You're otherwise being very (commendably) clear, e.g. with things like "the group finals (event quarter-finals)".
  • I'd love to use "qualifying", but sadly all sources use the idea of a group semi-final, which is a little absurbed for a non round-robin. We also refer to qualifying as the act of winning an event in this context Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If we're going to go with a comma-free style with scores, some sentences might need re-jiggering a little. E.g., "having defeated Kyren Wilson in the 2018 Champion of Champions final 10–9" doesn't parse well, and is better as "having defeated Kyren Wilson 10–9 in the 2018 Champion of Champions final" (though "having defeated Kyren Wilson in the 2018 Champion of Champions final, 10–9" would also work; the lack of a comma is only troubling when it's a stand-alone clause like that, a construction in which it's a shorthand for something tumid like "by a score of 10–9").
  2. I don't think a comma can reasonably be avoided either way in this more complex construction: "... Mark Selby defeating first-time ranking event winner Yan Bingtao 4–0." Using "... Bingtao, 4–0" flows better in this case than "... defeating, 4–0, first-time ..."
  3. "First round loser: £12,500" needs a hyphen between the first two words (they're serving as a compound modifier of "loser").
  4. Qualification table: I'm a little confused as to why cells in any column but the one for player names has a darker background, and further why this is not happening with 2019 World Cup (in every other case, the entire row is grey if a player name is).
  5. "based on the world snooker rankings". I would flip that to "snooker world rankings" to agree with the article title and to avoid confusion with World Snooker, the proper name (they're connected, but these are their rankings in world competition in snooker, not their rankings in some kind of internal favouritism system within World Snooker. :-)
  6. "Judd Trump second, Mark Selby third and Neil Robertson fourth": Add comma after "third" so we're using serial commas consistently.
  7. "as a single-elimination, rather than a round-robin competition" can be compressed to "as a single-elimination rather than round-robin competition", with better flow.
  8. "In the other group four match", "the group four final", "The group three matches", "the other group three first-round match", "In the group three final", "The group two matches", "in the other group two first-round match", "The group one matches", "in the other group one first-round match", "in the group one final": hyphenate "group-[number]" as compound adjectives in these cases. PS: The structural repetitiveness of this wording isn't a problem; the segments are separated enough that it does not come off as repetitive, and the parallel constructions actually help the reader to understand the material precisely.
  1. "the six-red and World Cup winner" needs links to Six-red snooker and World Cup (snooker) probably; definitely at least the first one. [Aside: I don't know why it's not at Snooker World Cup, since even most marketing materials about it don't refer to it as just the World Cup, but either include the word "Snooker", or precede it with the main sponsor name (e.g. the Beverley World Cup, recently).]
  1. "having won the women's world championship": Should be "Women's World Championship" (technically the full name of the event is "Women's World Snooker Championship" but it's still serving as a proper name here, in the same way that The Empire Strikes Back does despite also having a longer full title).
  2. Another missing serial comma, and possibly could use restructuring: "Un-Nooh won three of the first four frames, with breaks of 63, 51 and 90, before Wilson made breaks of 102 and 98 to force a deciding frame." This could be done as "... frames, with breaks of 63, 51, and 90, before Wilson ...", but every now and then someone frowns about too many commas, so it could be done less parallel as, e.g., "Un-Nooh won three of the first four frames – with breaks of 63, 51, and 90  – before Wilson made breaks of 102 and 98 to force a deciding frame", or parallel with parentheticals, something like "Un-Nooh won three of the first four frames (with breaks of 63, 51, and 90), before Wilson (with breaks of 102 and 98) forced a deciding frame".
  3. "Two former world champions": I've never cared for that expression, as it sounds like the title was rescinded. "Prior" of "previous" might work better, though this is a really subjective nit to pick.
  4. "suffered a kick": could "skid" or another jargon term be used and linked here, for WP:COMMONALITY reasons? "Kick" may confuse some readers, as it has a very different meaning in pool, at least in North America and anywhere that cue sports are more pool- than snooker-leaning. [I've observed a tendency to import US-flavoured terms via WPA pool, which is global but rather US-dominated in its ruleset and terminology, and until pretty recently its top player ranks. Similar to British dominance of World Snooker rules, terms, rankings.]
  1. "the tournament's highest break of 140": This is probably worth linking to Highest snooker break, so snooker-novice readers can see it was close to a maximum, amid a veritable sea of century breaks throughout the event. Same in the section about breaks, where we're also linking Century break again for anyone who leaps right to this section from the ToC.
  2. "in frames five to seven" would be slightly clearer as "in frames five through seven"; it's a rather breathless passage. :-) And perhaps should be, given that it's about the exciting action in the final.
  3. "Trump took the first frame of the second session, but Robertson replied with a break of 104." I would use "returned", "came back", or some other phrasing, as "reply" was just used two sentences earlier, and at least once already in material prior to that.
  4. "required foul shots": This could be {{Cuegloss}}-ized again; it was linked in the lead, but I think we usually re-link at first occurrence in the main article body, and that was a long time ago in this article's content.
  5. Some of these tidbits might be lead-worthy, in compressed form: "With a total of eight century breaks (five of which were compiled by Robertson), the final included a record number of centuries for a best-of-19-frames match.[36][40] There were 784,000 viewers on ITV4 across the two sessions of the final.[21] This was the second-highest non-terrestrial viewing figure for the day".
  6. It's not helpful to center the final table. On a large monitor, it looks kind of silly, and actually impedes its usefulness (it ends up looking like a navbox to ignore: https://i.imgur.com/rrwPmD4.jpg).
  7. "140, 108, 106 Mark Allen", etc. – better done as "Mark Allen: 140, 108, 106", I would think.
  1. Super-tiny nitpick (for editorial convenience, not readers): It helps a wee bit with line wrapping in source view if you do "|[archive-]url= https", with a space after the "=". Just for URL-bearing parameters.
  1. I can't see a darned thing iffy with the sourcing at this point (I think Rodney et al., above, caught anything I would have noticed, long before I got here), nor is anything leaping out at me as missing. I guess enough time has passed that it's vaguely possible someone involved has been quoted saying something else about the event that's worth noting, but this already seems to have combed the usual-suspect sources, and by now the players have moved on and are talking about other events.

I like that it includes the gender disparity stuff from Evans; there's been more reported in the sources than just play-by-play. Overall, it's kind of an exciting read while still staying within WP:ENC bounds and well short of WP:NOT#NEWS. Good job. I'm comfortable with this being an FA regardless whether the trivial bits I flagged above are addressed.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Regarding the requested image review, everything looks well placed and well licensed to me. There is OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I can see detailed commentary of the formatting of the references but didn't spot anything on source reliability -- this needs to be reviewed and signed off before we look at promotion. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Baggins, et al., have looked over some of it, and I can tell from prior involvement in snooker and other cue-sports editing that these are among the more commonly used sources for such articles. I don't see any "what the hell is that site?" entries popping out at me. Some of this is primary sourcing, but within WP:ABOUTSELF; there's not a better source for the official scores and other stats from a WS event that WS's official website for the event, just by the nature of that specific information.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

[edit]

This article looks good. There are a few things that stand out, though:

  • It was the ninth Champion of Champions event, which was first held in 1978. - this wording sounds off. For this, and similar articles that might have this wording, I'd suggest "the first of which was held in 1978".
  • Each group was played over the course of a single day, as a single-elimination, rather than a round-robin competition.[17][18] is a single sentence. While not a problem in itself, it's recommended to not have single-sentence paragraphs in FAs unless it's necessary.

Actually, that's about it. Everything else seems like it's covered above. epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC) Thanks Epicgenius, thanks for taking a look! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: No problem. I'll support this article for promotion to FA status. epicgenius (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2020 (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/2019_Champion_of_Champions/archive1&oldid=945876197"