Wikipedia:Peer review/Maximum break/archive1

Maximum break

I've listed this article for peer review because I think if is at a featured list level, but I would like some outside editor to give it a look before nominating it there.

Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nergaal. I'm not a list expert (though I do have an FL to my credit!) but I'll do my best with this. One thing that is immediately obvious is the aesthetics: parts of the page are quite messy. This is particularly true when you have the small legend tables. I'm not convinced these are necessary: {{abbr|TV|Televised}} (giving TV) might well be enough.

• First, the big thing, the links to videos. Most or all of these are copyright violations and, per WP:YT, should not be linked.

It's a shame we have to lose the videos because it's a great resource, but I agree they are a policy violation so need to come out. Betty Logan (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• See MOS:DTT for table style. It's quite a tricky thing to get right, but you certainly need row headers and scope="row" and also scope="col" as documented in that page. The main table also needs a caption.

Done. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• I find the green colour almost indistinguishable from the grey. Moreover, I question whether the break's being televised is enough to justify the change in colour. The note seems sufficient.
• Your referencing in the main table is highly inconsistent. Some rows have the reference by the number, others by the venue, many not at all. I don't see what facts the references are supporting.
• Many of the references seem quite outdated. Is there no up-to-date master list available somewhere?
• The table sorting is wrong. It sorts by nation, then by name. I think you want to use {{flagathlete}}, e.g. {{flagathlete|{{sortname|Neil|Robertson|dab=snooker player}}|AUS}}. Or make nationality a separate column.
• "Multiple maximum breaks in tournaments" This is a confusing title. "Tournaments with more than one maximum break" is more grammatical and clearer.
• "Match-winning maximum breaks" I presume this is maximum breaks in the concluding frame of a match, but it sounds like the break in itself is match-winning. This needs clarifying and might need a footnote to make clear that matches normally don't go to the full distance.

I'm going out now, but I'll be back later on today and deal with the prose stuff and the bulleted lists lower down. Relentlessly (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, further stuff.

• "Milestones" I don't like this header. "History" would be better.
• "68-year-old fellow Englishman Willie Smith at Leicester Square Hall, London" This is horrible journalese! Why is the age important? Why do we have "fellow Englishman" as a false title? I suggest "Joe Davis compiled the first officially recognised maximum break on 22 January 1955 in a match against Willie Smith at the Leicester Square Hall in London."
• As an addendum to that, I also wonder about "compiled". Is this the normal term in snooker? Why not just "scored"? It feels like elegant variation to me.
• The second half of that paragraph, from "The match between Davis and Smith" onwards, feels irrelevant to the maximum break. Either explain why it's all relevant or lose it.
• "the Queen Elizabeth Hall, Oldham," – "the Queen Elizabeth Hall in Oldham" is more elegant.
• "fellow Englishman John Spencer" – "John Spencer" is sufficient unless the nationality is somehow significant.
• Ditto for Cliff Thorburn and Terry Griffiths in the next sentence.
• "For the next 11 seasons, only 14 other official maximum breaks were scored. Starting with 1994/1995, a maximum break has been achieved every single season, with a peak of twelve maximums during the 2001/2012 season." A few things here. Presumably you mean "2011/2012". "Every single season" can be "every season". I suggest the final subclause should be made a substantive clause: "every season; the twelve maximums scored in the 2011/2012 season is the highest number to date". Finally, I don't understand the apparent contrast between the first and second sentences. If there were 14 scored in 11 seasons, surely that's an average of more than one a season? I think you're saying that the rate has increased significantly, but you're not actually showing how. You could either explain how many seasons before 1994 had no 147s scored, or you could explain how many have been scored on average since 1994, or (best of all) both.
• "100th" – "one-hundredth" would in my view be nicer.
• "The maximum break has now been officially achieved 114 times in professional competition, over half of which were achieved by English players." Repetition of "achieved".
• "England's Ronnie O'Sullivan" This is the first time nationality feels relevant. I don't like "England's", however. I'd suggest something like "Ronnie O'Sullivan – who is English – has compiled..."
• "thirteen ratified competitive maximum breaks" I can't believe this is the most elegant way to phrase this. Surely to be ratified they have to be competitive?

You can have ratified 147s in exhibition matches. Ratification basically depends on two things: the game is played under WPBSA rules under the direction of a WSA referee, and the table must have templated pockets. One example would be the first ever ratified 147 made by Joe Davis in an exhibition match in 1955. Conversely, while rare there have been occasions where professional tournaments have been played on non-templated tables. One example would be the first ever maximum made in a pro tournament by John Spencer in 1979. Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Scotsmen Stephen Hendry and John Higgins", "China's Ding Junhui", "Scotland's Jamie Burnett", "England's Jamie Cope" – as above.
• "made a 148" I understand why you would say "a 147", but I don't think "148" has the same common use. I suggest "made 148" as simpler and more idiomatic.
• "attained a break of 155" More elegant variation. "scored 155" is sufficient.
• "Records" This section is a mess, quite frankly! Bulleted lists are a bad idea. Most of these sections would be better as tables. See List of Cricket World Cup records for how this can be nicely done. You'd need a final column "Notes" to explain the context of some of them. The same is true of "Breaks exceeding 147"
• You have a {{fact}} tag in "Records"
• There are several statements without citations in "Breaks exceeding 147"

I'm very happy to have another look at this in future, here or at WP:FLC. Drop me a line on my talk page. Relentlessly (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)