Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2019 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 promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2019 [1].

2019 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins (talk)[reply]

This article is about the world snooker championship from earlier this year. The championship was the first time an amateur player qualified, and defeated the world number one in the first round! Judd Trump finally won his first world title, defeating Scot John Higgins in the final. It's a relatively long read, but covers the event's history, the individual matches, qualifying, century breaks and broadcasting. Please let me know if there is anything that needs working on.

Co-nominated with: Rodney Baggins who has done a tonne of work to make sure the prose is tight. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]

I reviewed this at WP:GAN and Lee did a lot of work for that to pass. Since then Rodney Baggins has really polished the article. I have nothing substantial to add other than my support. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from nigej

[edit]

Article is of high quality, I have made a few minor comments below. Nigej (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the nomination. I've made some changes to the article and tried to answer your other queries, but some things Lee will need to help me with. Thanks for all your comments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
  • "... an amateur player appeared at the main stage of the event. Debutant James Cahill ..." It was not immediately clear to me whether Cahill was that amateur or whether it someone else unnamed.
    • Would it work with a colon between the two sentences: "For the first time in the history of the world championship, an amateur player appeared at the main stage of the event: debutant James Cahill defeated world number one Ronnie O'Sullivan in the first round, before being narrowly defeated by Stephen Maguire in a second round deciding frame." Or is that still ambiguous? Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Format
[edit]
  • "finishing three days before the start of the main draw." - would prefer "event" or similar, for "draw", which means something else to me.
  • "The remaining 15 seeds were allocated based on the latest world rankings, which were released after the China Open." I am left wondering whether there had been any great excitement during the China Open as to who would make it to the top 16. Not sure there was this year.
  • "The event" covers qualifying. I mean there obviously was some press about who might make it, but I feel that's information for the China open. There was some press about it at the start of the season, same as every season. If someone missed out by a few points, or if a match at the China open in particular was the difference, I'd mention it, but not really worthwhile otherwise. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First round
[edit]
  • "The draw for the first round of the championship was made on 18 April 2019" but the reference is dated 16 April. I think 18th is correct. Perhaps we need a different reference with the correct date on it.
→ I can look into this. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've looked into this and indeed the official statement from the WPBSA is dated Tuesday 16 April, 6:17 pm. @Lee Vilenski: do we know for a fact that the draw actually took place on Thursday 18th? If the qualifying rounds finished on the 16th, is it not feasible that the draw took place that same day in the evening, as soon as the qualifiers were known? Was it televised? Is the WPBSA ref. likely to be dated wrong? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was streamed on YouTube - [2] for the 18th. It's likely the WPBSA item was created for information about the draw, and then changed afterwards. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the first being John Parrott's defeat of Eddie Charlton in the first round of the 1992 championship)" - do we need brackets or just a comma before it. (also for "(breaking the previous record set in 2016 by Mark Selby and Marco Fu by more than three minutes)")
→ I normally prefer to use parenthesis when the bracketed clause is not essential for the meaning of the sentence, which would stand on its own just as well without the additional info. The clause in parenthesis is just provided to add context, or answer a query that might come up in the reader's mind (almost like a stage whisper). And sometimes, as in both of the examples here, including the "aside" as part of the main sentence just makes the sentence clause-heavy. The brackets help to break it up a bit. That's how I see it anyway. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "baulk pocket" perhaps "yellow pocket"/"green pocket" are better understood nowadays and more precise.
→ Yes, we could change this to "missed a risky pot into the yellow pocket" and then "went into the green pocket". Although 'baulk' is linked to the glossary definition so should be clear enough. What do you think Lee? Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second round
[edit]
  • "This match included nine century breaks altogether" not sure we need "altogether"
  • "four consecutive century breaks had been compiled" perhaps " four century breaks had been compiled in consecutive frames"
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quarter-finals
[edit]
  • "bringing the score to 9–7 ahead of the final session" comma before "ahead"
  • "Trump had won six straight frames to conclude his second round match against Ding Junhui; he won another six consecutive frames at the start of this match" reads oddly, perhaps "Trump, having won six straight frames to conclude his second round match against Ding Junhui; won another six consecutive frames at the start of this match"
  • "Gilbert took the final two frames". Prefer "next two frames". Only "final" in hindsight. Similarly "with a century break of 101 in the final frame", prefer "next" to "final"
Disagree with 1st point (comma not needed) but otherwise  Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Final
[edit]
  • "He had previously won the world championship four times (in 1998, 2007, 2009 and 2011), one short of the record held by Stephen Hendry." has me mystified.
  • "which prevented the match from concluding early with a session to spare" not sure we need "early"
 Done Thank you for noticing the Hendry blunder. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General
[edit]
  • The use of the term "amateur", meaning someone not on the main tour, still seems very odd to me. They are not really amateurs in that they take the prize money. Perhaps this strange use of the term should be explained for old-fashioned folk like me.
  • I think the whole "amateurs don't get paid" thing is pretty much a golf thing. I don't know of any other sports that operate in this way. Sadly, sources all call him an amateur, as did the media around the event. I don't know that there are many other ways to phrase this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Betty Logan

[edit]

Reviewing an article of this quality always feels a bit like nitpicking but here are my observations:

  • I think the lead should mention Murphy's whitewash of his opponent in the first round—only the second in Crucible history—and also the 11-century record in the final.
  • The term "In modern times" (Background, 1st para) is subjective and vague. Could this be changed to "In the 21st century" or "Since the game went open in 1991" or something to that effect, to qualify what we mean by modern times. The process of internationalisation began in the 1990s so it would help to be more specific.
  • Similarly, the sentence "Stephen Hendry is the most successful player in the modern era" (Background, 3rd para) similarly uses WP:JARGON. The "modern era" is generally understood to mean since the annual KO format was adopted in 1969, so could we please define the modern era and add in a date. Absolutely no-one but a snooker anorak will understand the context of the term.
  • In the "Format" section could we have a basic description of the multi-session format please. This does come in later in the article but it would be helpful if this information were also included in the format section. I would recommend a paragraph that covers the number of frames played in each round, the number of sessions and the number of frames in those sessions. Basically so someone could just read the format section and get an understanding of the general outline of the competition.
  • "Gould then won frame 11, but Williams claimed the next two frames to open up a 5-frame lead" -> five-frame lead (First round, Top half, para #1)
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the reference styles are not consistent. For example, many World Snooker citations either credit the source as "World Snooker" or "worldsnooker.com". Compare #1 & #5.
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same goes for Sporting Life too. Compare #24 and #29 to #66, #67 & #69. Either style is fine but they need to be consistent.
 Done Here the website is effectively the same as the publisher, so (IMO) there's no need to include a separate publisher as in the World Snooker example where WPBSA publish the website worldsnooker.com as well as wpbsa.com Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #61 (marked as a dead link) needs to be replaced.
 Done Found a Sporting Life ref. to replace this, need to go through the para next to check everything's sourced OK. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is of very high quality and there are no fundamental problems preventing its progress to FA status. We just need to address some of the jargon issues and sort out the referencing and it's good to go. Thanks a lot for your work on this Lee & Rodney. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments Betty, there's some interesting stuff in there. I was overtaken by events yesterday, hence the late acknowledgement. Will try to address some of the issues today. I think you're right about the additions to the lead, as they were notable features of the tournament. I admit I never did get round to going through the references in minute detail, and there are probably a few things that need sorting out there so I'll get onto it. Ref.61 definitely needs removing and I've a feeling the info is covered in one or more of the existing citations anyway so it should all iron out. I'll get onto that later today. Look forward to hearing Lee's feedback too. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I need to ask you (this also applies to Nigej): has it occurred to you that the TOC limit is making it difficult to navigate round the article? I'm particularly concerned about lack of access to the individual subsections of the Tournament summary section, which is rather long, and I'd find it useful to be able to jump down quickly to the Quarter-finals (for example) from the TOC. I understand from Lee that the TOC was limited to level 2 after a previous discussion for the GA review but I wonder if we need to readdress it? I agree that a lengthy TOC is not great because it leaves lots of empty space top-right, but the whole point of the TOC is to help the reader quickly find what they're looking for in such a big article. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the TOC is too short. One extra level would be better in my view. Nigej (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful to be able to access each round from the contents. I am not aware of the previous GA that suggested this, but it's certainly not required by MOS:SNOOKER. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made this {{TOC|3}}. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Betty Logan - thanks for your comments. Did we get all of the issues with this, or is there more outstanding? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support FA, Lee. Great work again. Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KyleJoan

[edit]

It is undisputed that this article is of superb quality. I'm only slightly familiar with snooker, so learning about this year's tournament from analyzing this article has been enlightening. I do have some comments, but at this stage, they're mere suggestions.

  • In modern times, however, it has become increasingly popular worldwide, especially in East and Southeast Asian nations such as China, Hong Kong and Thailand. "Modern times" in this context seems ambiguous. Would "recent times" better reflect the timeline of diversification? The term "recent" to me evokes a sense of decades, while "modern" is more extensive. I also wouldn't be opposed to changing the term to "modern era" and utilizing the modern era note from a few sentences below to better illustrate a timeframe.
I'll see what other people think, but I've made the change. This might be a solution to an issue I've been having for a while. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred. I understand this is specific to the 2019 tournament. Would it be superfluous to add some details regarding whether the same company sponsored previous tournaments?
I don't think it's superfluous at all. I think the issue is sourcing on this one. Without putting down the sourcing for each individual event, it might be difficult to show. I'd like to have The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, who have sponsored the event since 2015. but I'd need a source stating this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the final, Higgins praised Trump's performance, "I was the lucky one to not have to pay for a ticket, he was just awesome". Maybe add "stating" (i.e. "After the final, Higgins praised Trump's performance, stating: "I was . . .")?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilson, ranked 30 in the world, said that "Judd deserved to win" . . . This sentence isolates the player's rank between commas, while these do not: Jamie Jones ranked 61 was serving a suspension, and did not compete in the championships; Li Yuan ranked 97 did not compete in the championships. Maybe isolate the latter two sentences as well?
  • Jamie Jones ranked 61 was serving a suspension, and did not compete in the championships. I personally feel "thus" would be more appropriate in this context than "and" to annotate cause and effect.
I must say I'm not a fan of the word "thus", as it implies something that may not be strictly accurate. Yes, Jones did sit the event out because he was suspended. However, it's possible he could have reprevied, or gotten around this somehow. I prefer "so" to "and" as it leaves it a bit more ambigious. Maybe Rodney Baggins would be a bit better on the wording than me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, it looks thorough and concise. Good luck! KyleJoantalk 01:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Kyle, very helpful. We've tried to address things as best we can, if you would like to check. I have found a couple of sources that we could use for the Betfred sponsorship issue, so I'll run that past Lee to see what he thinks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→ How about this... "The title sponsor of the event was sports betting company Betfred, who have sponsored the tournament every year since 2015.[3]" and possibly add an efn note... "Betfred previously sponsored the world championship from 2009 to 2012.[4]" ? First source is SportsBusiness Sponsorship, second is WPBSA. Unfortunately the WPBSA one doesn't fully cover the 2015 to 2019 period as it was published in 2015 and only looked forward to 2017 but not beyond, but it could be used for the note if we add one in. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→ Or alternatively... "The title sponsor of the event was sports betting company Betfred, who have sponsored the tournament every year since 2015 (having previously sponsored the world championship from 2009 to 2012).[5][6]" ? Then we could just put both refs. together after the brackets. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the second one. Great job on finding the sources! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second description sounds excellent. Thanks for taking my suggestions into consideration! Changing the title of the subsection to annotate support now. KyleJoantalk 15:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MWright96

[edit]
Background
  • I think United Kingdon should not be wikilinked per MOS:OVERLINK
I agree  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Format
  • "while the other participants were placed randomly into the draw. " - the word in bold should be replaced to competitors to avoid reptiton of the word that is mentioned earlier in the sentence it is part of
  • "as well as 22 wildcard places allotted to non-tour players." - A wikilink of wildcard to Wild card (sports) would be benefical IMO
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Participant summary
  • "This was O'Sullivan's 27th consecutive appearance in the final stages of the World Championship since his debut in 1993," - wikilink 1993 to 1993 World Snooker Championship
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First round
  • " Williams opened up a lead in frame ten, before Gould made a clearance to force a respotted black, but it was Williams who potted the black to go ahead 7–3." - this is a run-on sentence that needs to be addressed
reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams clinched a "nervy" 17th frame" - is "nervy" actually needed here?
The word "nervy" was picked up from the BBC ref. but can easily be removed. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only the second ever to be witnessed at the Crucible" - better: second in history
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Sorry I disagree with this. "second in history to be witnessed" doesn't sound right. Reverted. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but then missed a risky pot" - risky should be replaced with an alternative word that is more formal
How is tricky? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not keen on tricky myself. I've changed it to "difficult" and I've changed "pot" to "shot". Alternatives might be awkward / uncertain / doubtful / delicate? Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Rodney's alternations to the wording here are adequate. MWright96 (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cahill missed a simple red after compiling an early break in frame 17" - straightforward red ball
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, despite needing only the final pink and black to win," - final pink and black balls
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second round
  • "with just two reds remaining, he asked for the screen between the tables to be lifted" - red balls
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before Wilson won three consecutive frames to secure his place in the quarter-finals." - secure a place would be better suffice
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Higgins won the next two frames after a missed plant to win 13–11." - The sentence should mention that Bingham missed the plant per the source citing the information?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded and reworded the Higgins/Bingham match now, if you'd like to go back and check? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Am happy with the newly-worded sentence. MWright96 (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quarter finals
  • "when he was asked to sum up his performance in the match." - I believe summarise would be more formal in this instance
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-finals
  • "including a maximum attempt," - maximum break
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a crowd member was ejected for shouting out immediately" - make it clear the crowd member was ejected from the arena
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both players were "nervy" during the third session." - according to whom?
Just removed it. Seems pointless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Final
  • "The final was played over four sessions, as a best-of-35-frames match." - added which dates the final was held as you've done for the other stages of the tournament
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was Higgins' third consecutive world championship final (having been defeated by Mark Selby in 2017 and Mark Williams in 2018), and his eighth world final overall." - just having worded the text highlighted in bold as and eighth overall. would suffice
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he played an impressive full-table double to pot the red ball," - try to avoid terms such as "impressive" and replace it with a more formal word
Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but then missed the following black." - black ball
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifying
  • "Players ranked 17–80 in the 2018/2019 world rankings were seeded 1–64 in qualifying." - should be 17 to 80 and 1 to 64 per MOS:ENFROM
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Numbers given in brackets after players' names (in left-hand columns below) show the seedings (1–64) for the players ranked 17–80 in the 2018/2019 world rankings." - same issue as above
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage
  • "The tournament was broadcast live in the UK by" - should UK be worded as United Kingdom for consistency?
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Scotland, the BBC was criticised for showing the world championships on BBC Scotland," - how about televised for variety?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think "televised" is a bit of an old-fashioned word. I've reworded the offending paragraph to make sure there's no repetition of "show" in it. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • References 2 and 5 require the page numbers that state the information in the article
I'm guessing it's 2 and 4, no? I've done the first one (it's covered in the full chapter one, although it's pretty obvious information that could be sourced anywhere.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Working We've picked up the Clive Everton book (ref.4), but assuming the other source that needs looking at is the Yorkshire Post newspaper citation (ref.2) we need someone with a subscription who can trawl through and pick out a page number. I did a free subscription, which gives you 3 free pages, but as the newspaper has 20 pages and no search function, I soon got in a pickle and came out with nothing! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Might just be easier to replace the citations in general. Can't imagine there isn't other sources for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you have a subscription to the Newspaper Archive do you Micheal? My thoughts on this one are that it's pretty much accepted that the World Snooker Championship is an annual cue sport tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker, and as such doesn't need to be ref'd, or at least if it does maybe this should be done inside the main World Snooker Championship article? But isn't it a bit like saying Paris is the capital of France? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I do not have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive at the present time. MWright96 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced both citations - MWright96 - is there more needed for this one? (thanks for your time!) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Matchroom Sport reference is good but I'm dubious about the DMC Leisure Saffron Walden & District Snooker League. It's hosted by the WordPress platform and the information comes from the World Snooker website. MWright96 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have simply changed the wording, and the cite to what the China source states from the World Snooker article. That should cover it. Thanks for your help MWright96! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the Guardian references (Refs 32, 79 and 82) that stated their stories are from the Press Association need to be mentioned in their respective templates
I'm not sure how you do this, any ideas Rodney Baggins? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 47 should include the fact it is a video we are being directed to
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, I have spotted some minor issues that are present in the article, none of which are severe enough to make me oppose its promotion to FAC. Nevertheless, nice work from Lee and Rodney on their work to the article. MWright96 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that – I'll have a good look through over the weekend and edit accordingly (unless Lee gets in there first!) Thanks for taking the time to go through this lengthy article in such a lot of detail, very much appreciated. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should have known! Working on the ref errors. Mirroring Rodney's comments, thanks for taking a look! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've covered most of these for you now, but I want to bring up a point for discussion that's been brought to light by some of your comments. The cue sport glossary entry for "red ball" states that red balls are also referred to as "red(s)" or "the red(s)", so after first using the full term "red ball" with glossary link, I think it's probably safe for us to drop the "ball" in later mentions of it, where appropriate. Sometimes using the full term "red ball" sounds slightly awkward and in some cases we might refer to "a red" when meaning a shot on the red (with the intention of potting it) rather than literally the red ball itself. A good example of this is "Cahill missed a straightforward red ball" which is really the "shot on the red" that he missed (he did actually hit the ball, he just didn't pot it!) so using "red ball" in this sentence loses that subtlety. Same goes for the other colours of course. Another example would be "but then missed the following black ball", where it's actually the shot on the black ball that he missed (again, he did hit the black) and to say "the following black ball" might even imply there's physically more than one black ball on the table. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You either missed this, haven't decided, or don't agree...? If you (and Lee) agree with the above, the specific bits I'd like to change are:
  • First round: "Cahill missed a straightforward red ball" > "Cahill missed a straightforward red" (here it's literally the shot on the red ball that's straightforward not the red ball itself)
  • First round: "despite needing only the final pink and black balls to win" > "despite needing only the final pink and black to win" (here "balls" just sound odd!)
  • Second round: "with just two red balls remaining" > "with just two reds remaining" (not sure about this one because in fact there were physically two red balls remaining so it's literally correct, so maybe we should say "with just two reds remaining on the table" to be precise?)
  • Final: "but then missed the following black ball" > "but then missed the following black" (it's the shot on the black ball that he missed, not the ball itself, and to say the "following black ball" might imply there's physically more than one black ball on the table)
  • Final: "but he overcut a red ball into the middle pocket" > "but he overcut a red into the middle pocket" (he overcut the shot, not the ball itself)
Let me know, thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are most likely right - I just haven't looked into it yet. I'll get on it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After a period of mulling it over, I agree with the changes suggested above. MWright96 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else from me on the matter. Will now support the article's promotion to FA. MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Twofingered Typist

[edit]

I have done an extensive review and copy edit of the article's text and am satisfied that it meets the FA requirements of being well written, comprehensive and follows the guidelines in Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SMcCandlish

[edit]

Pretty much "just what a championship article should be", as it were. I'm running out of steam for the day, but suspect that my suggestions will be very minor, as I pore over it in more details in a day or so. I'll just add quibbles as they occur to me, below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would change "maiden" to "first". The former is an archaism, and in these days of roving bands of language-"reform" activists, it may attract the wrong kind of attention.
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The centring of one of the tables (the finals, as I recall) is not helpful, especially on a wide monitor. I would just have it flush left like usual.
Which table? The one for the final? That's in the template. I can change it back to left align, but prior it's always been either centralised or fully justified. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is quite a common thing. I'm pretty sure Rodney went through most of these earlier in the process, but if you see any, let me know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comments

[edit]
I can perform a source review later today. --Laser brain (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time! :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also thanks from me (co-nominator). Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser brain any update on this one? Thanks for your time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging FACCoordinators:@Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Sarastro1: - I think this one passes the criteria and the source review that has been given, unless there are any further issues. Thank you for your time. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging FACCoordinators:@Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Sarastro1: as co-nominator, I think we've covered everything now, the article has 7 supporters and the source review is completed. Thank you, here's hoping... Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Fn 7: What makes Chris Turner's Snooker Archive a reliable source?
  • Fn 31, 79, 82: Check the publisher
  • Fn 44, 93, 106: Missing publisher
  • Fn 102 fails verification, as the archive link doesn't actually go to a working display. I think you'll need a better source confirming where the championship was broadcast.

Thanks all from me. --Laser brain (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this - Rodney Baggins could you fix these refs for me while I'm away? The snooker archive I believe was published before, no? I know he worked for places like Eurosport [7], and is deemed as a "historian" by RS. Can't see too much of an issue with him. The rest should be easy fixes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I've fixed ref.102 using a new working archive that shows the full Eurosport schedule for the championship from 23 April to 6 May — not sure how that one slipped through the net. As for all the others, I've not used the publisher parameter in any of these refs. because the work (newspaper) parameter is specified. In the case of The Guardian, the publisher is Guardian Media Group and in Template:Cite news it states that if the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (which it is here) there is no reason to name the publisher, so that's why I've omitted it. Refs. 31, 79 & 82 have the agency named as Press Association (former name of PA Media) because that's where the newspaper article's content came from, but refs. 44 & 93 have the author named because the content came from an inhouse author rather than an outside agency. In the case of ref.106, work (newspaper) is The National, author is given, but no publisher is given for same reason as above. However in this case the publisher is "Herald & Times Group", which is substantially different from the name of the work, but I'm in the habit of not specifying the publisher as long as the work parameter is specified, as I was told it's not necessary. Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that reply Rodney. That seems to cover all of the above. Do you know much else about Chris Turner? He's always be a defacto RS from my experience, but I have no way to check through the WP:SNOOKER archives to find out if it's ever been discussed before. Him being a recognised historian seems pretty good to me, but it would be nice to know if it's been discussed before. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Turner supplied the stats for Eurosport coverage. The Snooker Archive was his personal website. WP:SPS states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" so it is my belief that the Snooker Archive qualifies in this capacity. We should minimise our dependency on such sources though and the information it is being used to source can be located at the official World Snooker site: https://www.wpbsa.com/about/history/. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have swapped this ref out in that case. Hi Laser brain thanks for taking a look at this for us. Is there anything further for this review? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 October 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/2019_World_Snooker_Championship/archive1&oldid=924456576"