Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 World Snooker Championship final/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 12 February 2021 [1].

1985 World Snooker Championship final

edit
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most famous snooker match of all time. Picture it, it's 1985, Steve Davis has won three world championships and has pretty much won everything else. He's in the final of the 1985 World Snooker Championship, and plays Northern Ireland's Dennis Taylor. Should be a good match? Davis wins the first of four sessions without losing a single frame, and then leads 8-0. It's the first to 18. He misses a green ball, and Taylor goes on a rampage, gets the score back to 13-11 after the third session, but then trails 17-15. Game over? No. Taylor wins the next two and it's a deciding frame. There are 46 legal pots on the table, but it comes down to the very last one. It's all on the final black ball. Both men have a go, and Davis is left with an easy-ish pot. The whole country groans. He misses, and Taylor pots to win his only world championship. 18.5 million people look at their watches, it's 1a.m and you've got work in the morning.

The main article, the 1985 World Snooker Championship passed through to FA last year. This is the only individual snooker match that we have an article on, although I'd say there's probably three or four more that are notable. This one is in a league of it's own, due to holding the record audience past midnight in the UK, and of any show on BBC Two. The match is often credited with the snooker boom of the 1980s and early 1990s. I hope you enjoy the read, and let me know if there is anything I've missed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth

edit

Support Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

edit

I may claim points for this review in the WikiCup, if I consider it a substantial enough review.

More to follow. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly more to follow. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this for me BennyOnTheLoose, I've made necessary adjustments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose - I've covered the above, was there anything more? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through a few sources to see if there are any aspects that might be missing from the article. Sources consulted:

  • Ian Morrison, Snooker: records, facts & champions
  • David Hendon, Snooker Scene's 50 Classic Matches
  • Luke Williams & Paul Gadsby, Masters of the Baize
  • Clive Everton, Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards
  • Hector Nunns, The Crucible's Greatest Matches
  • Snooker Scene, June 1985

I'd say that the following probably merit inclusion:

Also for consideration:

Looking at some of the contemporary reporting, (mindful of TRM's comment that "7 words per frame doesn't feel like comprehensive coverage for a featured article"), there isn't all that much about the match before the final frame other than descriptions of breaks and Taylor's hue. The info about the breaks is already in the final table, so I'm not sure there is all that much missing. Any reviewers with access to newspaper archives with a different opinion? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

That's me being over succinct. I think you need 'the' before "reason".
Oh, haha I was very confused by this. Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a professional tournament and the official world championship of the game of professional snooker". Is the second "professional" necessary?
I much prefer your original wording. Do Benny and I need to step into the car park to have a full and frank review of the nuances of this?
I was concerned about the double use of "professional", but that's not a huge deal. Fairly obviously, it can't be described as "official" unless that is solidly supported. At the moment it seems to be sourced to a 1927 newspaper article. Lee, anywhere else supporting "official"? Or less than 94 years old? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose not. It's sort of a thing people just know to be true. I've changed to The World Snooker Championship is a professional snooker tournament first held in 1927 and held annually since 1969. which I've sourced. Hows that? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"bracket" is horrible. Almost anything would be better IMO. Not a show stopper, but coming to this cold it was about the one thing which really jarred.
Nope - it says 2019. Personally I always use the "current year" formulation.
Looks good. It occurs to me that "three frame" should be hyphenated.
Good point. I hadn't noticed that.
        • It's a bugbear of me, probably because I watch too much snooker. It's done on commentary all the time "onto the bottom cushion at the top of your screen!"
  • Is the bottom left pocket really known as the "green corner pocket"? If so, it seems unnecessarily technical.
It's horribly technical. I know a little about the sport and I was looking at my hands and trying to visualise where I was standing. But if "top" and "bottom" are confusing I am stumped for better ideas.
Left and right is all about perspective too, which is why it's usually done by colour. I could just say "corner pocket", as which pocket it was doesn't really matter. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are OK with that. IMO it would improve the article.
  • Davis, however, claimed that he was "the best in the world this year." - I started a different query and half way through realised that Davis was referring to Taylor. I think that the context of the quote in the article means that this is not clear.
  • "Davis mentions how close he was to being able to pot a pink which he snookered himself on that changed the course of the match". Grammatically this is correct, but it takes a couple of read throughs to work out what is meant.

Really good. It brought back some of the tension nicely. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of relatively minor comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for expanding. I've made some replies, it does read a bit better now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that there are no PD images closer to 1985? Eg, the image of Davies 25 years after the event is not ideal. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is File:Steve Davis Warsaw 16.06.2007.jpg from 2007, but I thought it negligible. Nothing PD that I've found from even the same century sadly. If they exist on flickr or otherwise that's news to me... But please let me know if they do exist! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree with you more. With the current climate, not going to get any new current images either! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

edit

I will leave a few comments shortly. Right now I'll just leave my initial lead comments:

  • I found it somewhat strange that there are thumbnail images in the table of the lead section. It's not a big deal, but quite strange.
  • Davis was appearing in his fourth final, and it was Taylor's second. - I wonder if this may be rephrased because the sentence structure of these two clauses is inconsistent. E.g. "The event was Davis's fourth final and Taylor's second"
  • The climax in the early hours of Monday 29 April was viewed by 18.5 million people in the United Kingdom, which remains a record viewing figure for BBC2 - also as of 2020?
  • The match is often considered the most famous snooker match of all time, and the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s despite there not being a single century break.
    • Is the phrase "often considered" applicable to both clauses of this sentence? I.e. "The match is often considered [...] the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s".
    • Or does the phrase "often considered" refer merely to "the most famous snooker match of all time"? I.e. "The match is [...] the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s". I ask this because I don't see anything about an 80s-90s surge in the text.
  • For those who are unfamiliar with snooker, is the lack of a century break uncommon?
  • It is the only "Crucible" final (i.e. World Snooker Championship final since 1977) not to feature a century break. (A source for this, up to and including 2019, is Chris Downer's Crucible Almanac, 2019 edition, p.187.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • The World Snooker Championship is a professional snooker tournament first held in 1927 and held annually since 1969. - "held" is repeated in close succession
  • The tournament featured a 32 participant - given that this would be an adjectival phrase, it should probably be "32-participant"
  • Steve Davis, ranked as the world number one - a comma is needed after "world number one"
  • He then played David Taylor in the second round holding at least three-frame lead throughout much of the match and eventually won 13–4, after winning seven frames out of eight - this may be a run-on sentence because of the lack of commas, and the comma that is there may not be necessary. I would rewrite this as, "He then played David Taylor in the second round, holding at least three-frame lead throughout much of the match, and eventually won 13–4 after winning seven frames out of eight".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Match report:

  • This was Davis's fourth world championship final, having won the event in 1981, 1983 and 1984. - This is a dangling modifier, as "having won the event" modifies "[the] final" when it should modify "Davis". More grammatically correct is something like "Davis was competing in his fourth world championship final, having won the event in 1981, 1983 and 1984." However, I think it can be refined into a better wording.
  • It was Taylor's second final, having lost to Terry Griffiths 16–24 in 1979 - Also a dangling modifier here.
  • The black missed but rebounded up and down the table - If I'm understanding correctly, it reverberated between either side of the table? I think there may be a better word for this, but at the moment, it has not occurred to me.
  • Taylor cited defeating Thorburn, who he described - I think it would be "whom he described", as Thorburn is the object of the description. In other words, Taylor had described him (Thorburn). Same as and Davis, who he described, as Davis is also the object of the description.

Legacy:

  • He would, however, win the following three in a row between 1987 and 1989, - I wonder if it would be suitable to say something similar to "He would, however, win the subsequent three" or "He would, however, win all the finals between 1987 and 1989". In the context, it may be repetitive. The "following year's final", mentioned in the previous sentence, is assumed to be 1986. Furthermore, the time span of 1987–1989 is consecutive, so "in a row" is almost definitely repetitive.

@Lee Vilenski: That's all the prose comments I had. Epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and spot checks by ImaginesTigers

edit

Instead of a prose review, I'll go through the article and do some copy-editing. After that's done, I'll spot-check about ten citations at random; any more than five major issues, and I'll do another five. I'm not anticipating any problems, given your prestigious pedigree! Might be tomorrow, but it might be Monday. Bear with. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got access to most of the offline sources if there are any you would like me to have a look at. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. There's a lot I don't understand in this article... thankfully, there are wiki-links! There's some kind of template being used for some of them, though, which made it a nuisance to check what they meant in Visual Editor. Anyway, here's my spot checks:

2. Fine 3. Fine 7. Fine 8. Fine 19. Fine 36. Fine

Thanks to me now having a Wiki Library card, I have access to newspapers.com, but thanks for the offer, Benny.

13. Pass 14. Pass


Everything is laid out clearly; reference formatting is all fine, as I can see it. Passes the spot check easily. I've carried out some minor copy-editing (feel free to revert any you disagree with). I'm sorry this review is so brief but it didn't take very long at all. Good job, Lee. Support. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

edit

That's my first quick pass, hope it's helpful, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the establishment don't approve of this kind of "nitpick" review which apparently is designed to "impress" people, so I'll leave this with my support. Good luck Lee, this place has turned to shit. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:36, 23 January 2021 (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/1985_World_Snooker_Championship_final/archive1&oldid=1006350354"