Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2021 World Snooker Championship/archive3

< 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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2022 [1].

2021 World Snooker Championship edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2021 version of the World Snooker Championship. Third times the charm! 15 other events are at FA level, so I'm looking to get the latest version up to level. Let me know what feedback you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sportsfan77777 edit

I'll review the article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have anything for me Sportsfan77777. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • , that took place from 17 April to 3 May 2021 <<<=== I don't think that comma is needed.
  • for the World Snooker Championship to be held ===>>> the World Snooker Championship was held
  • , and was the 15th and final ranking event of the 2020–21 snooker season. The tournament was ===>>> The tournament was the 15th and final ranking event of the 2020–21 snooker season. It was
  • There were 128 participants in the qualifying rounds, with a mix of professional and invited amateur players ===>>> There were 128 participants in the qualifying rounds, consisting of a mix of professional and invited amateur players.
  • , with 16 players reaching the main stage of the tournament where they played the top 16 players from the snooker world rankings. ===>>> The main stage of the tournament featured 32 players, the top 16 players from the snooker world rankings and an additional 16 players from the qualifying rounds.
  • , defeating Kyren Wilson ===>>> , at which he defeated Kyren Wilson OR where he defeated Kyren Wilson
  • with an additional 106 ===>>> and an additional 106
Background
  • with the final held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis. ===>>> The final was held at Camkin's Hall in Birmingham, England, and the title was won by Joe Davis. (the misuse of "with" issue)
  • The event is organised by World Snooker ===>>> It is organised by World Snooker
  • £500,000, from a total <<<=== don't need the comma
  • highest-ranked players ===>>> higher-ranked players (it's too many for highest-ranked)
  • given byes ===>>> given one or two byes
    • Hmm, I'm not so sure of this. You get two byes if your opponent was to quit in two seperate rounds, but generally, the wording is "given a bye until round X". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan <<<=== I'm supporting using his first name here because it's used in tandem with "Defending champion", in contrast to ChrisTheDude's suggestion below.
  • a maximum of 33 frames. <<<=== just repeat "best of"? Changing terminology makes it sound different, but I think it's the same?
  • Maybe contrast the spectator situation with that of the previous year and/or what was normal for the rest of the events from the same season?
    • Hmm, I think we'd be WP:SYNTHing something together to get this to work, but I will take a read of some more sources. [2] doesn't actually cover it. It was (I believe) the only tournament with spectators, but there was (although weirdly limited to the first and last two days) fans in 2020. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifying
  • The defeat for White meant he was not ranked high enough to remain on the World Snooker Tour, but he was later given an invitational place for the following two seasons. ====>>> The defeat for White left him with too low of a ranking to automatically retain his tour card; however, he was later given an invitational tour card for the following two seasons. ("however" is useful for flow here. any reason for not using "tour card"?)
    • I don't like "tour card". If you know what it is, great - but it's unnecessarily jargony. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • named "judgement day", took place on 13 and 14 April and the winners qualified for the main stage ====>>> named "judgement day" because the winners qualify for the main stage, took place on 13 and 14 April. (lacks parallelism)
First
  • 112, to win the match 10–4 <<<=== don't need the comma
  • Reigning Masters champion Yan Bingtao played Gould, making five breaks higher than 50 and tying the score at 4–4, having only played eight frames in their opening session. ===>>> Reigning Masters champion Yan Bingtao played Gould, making five breaks higher than 50 and tying the score at 4–4, ending their opening session after only eight frames. (I think? something is off grammatically.)
    • Yeah, the comment is that it was 4-4, despite first sessions generally being 9 frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maguire commented that he would be fined for using bad language at the quality of his play <<<=== Rephrase. This wording makes sound like was fined or did use bad language. Or maybe just use the quote: "I’m frustrated. I don’t think there’s a word for how I played. If there is a word, I’d get fined!"
  • the last three frames of the opening session to trail 4–5 ===>>> the last three frames of the opening session to only trail 4–5
  • was leading 5–4 after the first session. ===>>> ended up leading 5–4 after the first session.
  • Ding attempting a pot, only for the black to end in the opposite corner ===>>> in which the black ended in the opposite corner from where Ding was attempting a pot
  • after the next session had ended ===>>> after the next session ended
  • Identify the two qualifiers who won as qualifiers.
  • At the end of the section, state how many qualifiers advanced.
Second
  • 81, 105 and 138 as he led 4–1 ===>>> "81, 105 and 138 to lead 4–1" OR "81, 105 and 138 as he took a 4–1 lead"
  • McGill forced a deciding frame ===>>> McGill forced a deciding frame,
  • in the next allowing Lisowski ===>>> in the next, allowing Lisowski
  • two frames later – a 13–9 victory ===>>> two frames later, a 13–9 victory
  • praised Lisowski's play saying ===>>> praised Lisowski's play, saying
  • In a replay of the 2018 World Snooker Championship final <<<=== Is "replay" actually used the same as "rematch"?
  • 106–6 <<<=== Isn't it 109–6?
  • but won the final frame of the second session to lead by three ===>>> but he won the final frame of the second session to lead by three
  • At the end of the section, summarize the remaining seeds (e.g. All but three of the top eight made it to the quarterfinals.)
Quarter
  • Here you switch from best of 25 to best-of-25. Either is fine, but be consistent.
  • but they were tied at 8–8 after the second.[92] In the final session, Wilson won five straight frames to win the match 13–8. ===>>> After they were tied at 8–8 at the end of the the second session,[92] Wilson won five straight frames in the final session to win the match 13–8.
  • Williams had been playing <<<=== I don't think this is the right tense. It sounds like he changed his strategy, but I don't think he did?
  • where he rolled up to the reds <<<=== Is this "where he attempted to pocket a red ball on the break" (Also, would something like that be a clearer way to state it?)
  • Williams defended the break (add "strategy" or "tactic"? It's not just one break, right?)
  • where Murphy ===>>> during which Murphy
Semi
  • Wilson made breaks of 121 and 127; a total of 248 points without reply <<<=== should just be a regular comma
  • on several occasions ===>>> on several occasions,
  • the first player to win a match (add "at the World Championship")
  • , which Selby tied at 4–4 after the first session ===>>> and the match was tied at 4–4 after the first session
  • including making ===>>> , during which he made
  • but the next was won by Selby, which was halted twice for a re-rack ===>>> before the one after was halted twice for a re-rack and won by Selby
  • to be one frame away ===>>> to get to one frame away
  • with extended safety play ===>>> in part due to extended safety play
Final
  • claimed the title ===>>> won the title ("claimed" is too informal)
  • allowing Selby to win the frame. ===>>> , allowing Selby to win the frame.
  • before Murphy made a break of 100.[123] Murphy won the next frame, <<<=== this seems disjoint. these are the same frame, right?
  • being one frame away ===>>> and was one frame away

I'll finish the review in the next day or two probably. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for this. Looks like mostly minor wording changes, which shouldn't be a drama. Will start tomorrow. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sportsfan77777 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. I finished a first read-through. I'll go through it one more time after those comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will get on this as soon as I can. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All covered Sportsfan77777. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made two small changes (feel free to check those), but support. Good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sportsfan77777, could you check that I have correctly repositioned your support, immediately above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images edit

are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude edit

  • "The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it has been since 2009" - I'd be tempted to change this to "The tournament was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it had been since 2009", so that it remains valid even after such time as Betfred's sponsorship ends
  • "Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan" - no need to restate his forename so soon after he was last mentioned
  • "serving a year-long ban for controvening betting regulations" - contravening is spelt incorrectly
  • "World number one Judd Trump" - this is the first mention of Trump but he isn't wikilinked
  • "Williams won three of the next four frames, all with breaks over 70 to win 13–7" - think you need a comma after 70
  • "Selby's lead was cut to 8–6, but won" - Selby's lead didn't win, so this should be "Selby's lead was cut to 8–6, but he won"
  • "The final was broadcast to a peak audience of 4.1 million viewers on domestic television, equating to 27 per cent of all viewers in the United Kingdom" - this is a bizarre claim as, if I have read it correctly, it means that only around 15 million people in the UK were watching television at that time, which seems a low figure for a country with a population of 67 million. But it's what the source says, so hey......
  • Think that's all I got this time round...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG edit

Generally not my area of Wikipedia-interest but saw that the previous two noms suffered from a lack of feedback.

  • "It tournament was organised by the World Snooker Tour" - I think you probably meant "Its" here.
  • The lead mentions Matchroom Sports as one of the three broadcasters but the coverage section says, "The tournament was broadcast in the United Kingdom on BBC Television and Eurosport".
  • BBC → BBC Television (per coverage section)
  • whilst → while - both mean the same thing so we should opt for the simpler one.
  • "whilst Maguire commented that he was "frustrated. I don’t think there’s a word for how I played. If there is a word, I’d get fined!"." Use straight apostrophes instead of curly ones per MOS:'.
  • "On the resumption of play, Williams won five straight frames to take the match 10–4, saying afterwards that he would "go for everything", indicating he would.." - two usages of verb-ing modifiers read a little strangely. I suggest connecting these two with a conjunction.
  • "Higgins won the final three frames of the second session, but Williams won three of the next four frames, all with breaks over 70, to win 13–7." Three instances of 'win' in one sentence.
  • "Williams commented after the win that he felt he was playing as well as he had during the 2002–03 snooker season" - I have a hard time understanding this sentence.
  • "Bingham also won the next two frames, but frame 22 was won by Selby after the frame" - frame.. frame.. frame

That's all. FrB.TG (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look good but I’d still like a clarification on Matchroom Sports. The lead mentions it as one of the three broadcasters while the body only says BBC and Eurosport. If the lead is true, it should also be included in the body. FrB.TG (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that must have been deleted at some point. Basically, whilst there were minor coverage in other areas, which we shouldn't list all in the lede, matchroom covered it in any other areas. Now added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work. I would appreciate comments on my FAC but this is obviously not obligatory in any way. FrB.TG (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by MrLinkinPark333 edit

Per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2021 World Snooker Championship/archive2 and Talk:2021 World_Snooker Championship#FAC source review comments, I did not review Section 2 Summary to Section 2.6 Final as I had found a lot of unverifed / original research. As FAC2 was closed, I worked with Lee to go through the comments I had there on the talk page. Therefore, a source review of all sources for verification / original research issues is needed in all sections from Section 2 to Section 2.6 (Summary to final) is needed. I won't be doing this source review for FAC3 as I went through the ones I brought up with Lee in the talk page. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for your previous comments. I don't believe there is much uncited in this area, but happy for someone to check it over and confirm. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini! edit

My knowledge of snooker only extends as far as eight-ball, so hopefully I should help the article appeal to a broader demographic.

  • I'm not sure if others are having the same problem as I am, but a bunch of scores are being thrown around (1–6, 6–3) and I'm unsure of how this conclusion was reached.
    • MOS:CUE says that we should have scores written from the perspective of who is being talked about. For example, Robertson trailed 1–6 but later led 9–6. The article does say that the matches are played as the "best of" a certain amount of frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My grasp of article understanding would really benefit from a general description of how to play snooker, probably somewhere in format, possibly? As of late, the article appeals to an audience that has come to this article knowing what snicker is and just wants to know about the tournament statistics.

    • I'm not sure I agree with you. The vast majority of the article is a tournament summary in prose. There are results, but that's exactly what you'd need from an article about a sports event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • but this is gonna be on the front page and read by 30k others, most of which would probably like to know this information too. Here are some other statements throughout the article that better solidify my confusion with a lack of explanation:
  • "misjudged a pot on a red ball"
    • Both pot and "red ball" are linked. I'm not sure what more I can say other than the red ball is a ball, that is red.
  • "before going in-off in the next"
  • Mentions of specific-colored balls - to me a pink ball is the same as a black ball
    • Indeed. There are 22 balls in snooker, 15 red balls (worth 1 point), and then six coloured balls, with different values (pink is worth six, black worth seven)
  • "Wilson was placed into a snooker" - Is this like a Yahtzee situation?
    • Kind of. It's something that you can both play and be put into. Basically it means you have no clear path to the ball in play, but there's a bit more to it than that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also not a fan of how many of these terms link to Glossary of cue sports terms. The glossary itself is confusing (the definition of frame reads "A term for each rack from the break off until a clearance" with three other jargon words linked, so I had to go on a goose chase to figure out the meaning). Is there a way where you could give a basic description of some of these terms?
    • The thing is, not really. The glossary has very little to do with this article. The links are there specifically to help clarify what some of these words mean. A frame is an individual game of snooker, but the word game could mean a match. It's a little confusing to try and explain in line. You're better to say that a match is played as the best of X frames, and go with it. It's a little like explaining what a goal is in football, when you are talking about the world cup. I agree the glossary could probably do with a cleanup, but as there's no "featured glossary" pages, I doubt it'll top my list for a while. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephen Hendry and black ball are linked twice.

Overall, good work on this article. It's mainly just an archive of numbers so it's pretty hard to screw that up, and the player quotes help shake things up every once in a while. These main two points are my main concerns but a sprinkle of definitions should fix it up in two shakes. Best Wishes, Panini! • 🥪 13:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Panini!, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry, for future reference I don't watch these articles and glorify pings. I personally disagree with the lack of a snooker description, but I understand your point and I won't force you into adding one to garner my support. I feel it loses some audience from only appealing specifically to the tourney folks and therefore doesn't meet criteria 4 to a maximum, but Support on prose nonetheless. Panini! • 🥪 00:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Z1720 - pass edit

A reviewer as requested a spot check of sources in section 2. Below are my findings:

  • Refs checked, and no problems determined: ref 2, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 38
  • Ref 35 is in German, so I can't verify it.
  • ref 27: "for the first time since announcing his retirement after the 2012 event." The source says he retired in 2012, but doesn't say that it was after the 2012 event. I suggest changing this to, "for the first time since announcing his retirement from the sport in 2012."
  • ref 32: "Three-time World Championship semi-finalist Alan McManus announced his retirement after his second-round loss to Bai Langning." The source doesn't state that this was the second round. Can another source verify this, perhaps ref 33?
    • added additional source. Obviously the draw itself is widely cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 13: "but lost to world number 50 Mark King 3–6 in the second round." What information is this ref verifying?
  • ref 33: "Matches in this round were played over the best of 19 frames." How does this ref verify this?
  • ref 37: "Four players were competing having started in the opening round: Bai Langning, Jamie Clarke, Igor Figueiredo, and Steven Hallworth," Where does this course verify this info?
  • ref 37: "Bai led his match 5–4 after the first session, but lost 5–10 to Martin Gould;" Where in the source is this verified?
  • ref 33: "The lowest-ranked player to make it through to the Crucible was Jamie Jones, ranked 69 before the tournament." I don't think the archived link has the ranking of hte players.
    • Sure. I've removed it for now. I can find a source stating he was 69th, but not specifically stating that he was the lowest ranked player. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pause at "First round" because I need to get back to real life, but I will continue later. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Refs checked: 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 12
  • Ref 39: "The draw for the main stage of the tournament was held at 11 a.m. on 15 April 2021." Where in the source does it specify the time?
  • Ref 12: "The opening round took place between 17 and 22 April, each match played as the best of 19 frames held over two sessions." Where is the held over two sessions verified in the source?
    • I've removed. There is definitely a source out there (the old order of play for snooker.org states the times and stuff), but it's not super important. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12: "Defending champion O'Sullivan played debutant Joyce in the opening match." Ref 12 doesn't verify this information, but I think ref 40 does so you might want to add ref 40 here.#
  • Ref 50: "before the match was halted to allow a later session to go ahead on time." I could not find this in the source.
    • I've added another citation to show the match was halted as it overran. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 53: "The previous year's runner-up Kyren Wilson" I could not find this in the source.
    • Removed previous years runner-up, although it's already mentioned in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 65: " but won the final frame of the first session with a break of 114." Should this be 113?

I'll continue later with "Second round", as this is time comsuming and I need some rest. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Refs checked: 72, 73, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91,

Ref 76 and 87 were behind a paywall.

  • Ref 12: "The second round matches were played from 22 to 26 April," Where does the source verify when each round was played?
  • Double checked, and Lee is correct. Z1720 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 69 and 71: "who had never defeated him in their six professional matches." I could not find in the source where this was verified.
  • Ref 81: "In a rematch of the 2018 World Snooker Championship final," Where is this verified in the source?

Pausing, I'm at "Quarter finals". Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Refs checked: 12, 92, 93, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 104, 105

Ref 97 is a video, which is region-locked for me.

  • Ref 94: "Selby defeated Williams with a session to spare." Where does it verify that it was a session to spare?

Pausing at Semi-finals. Z1720 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Refs checked: 12, 110, 111, 112, 115, 117, 118
  • Ref 107 did not have a link because it was a printed source, so I couldn't check it.
  • I looked at this source and it verifies the relevant article text. I amended the stated author, per the source. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 106: "who had reached this stage for three of the last four events," I was not able to verify this in the source.
  • Ref 108: "In the final session, Murphy won five straight frames to win the match 17–12." I could not verify this. Perhaps use ref 109 instead.
  • Ref 113: "after Bingham scored 92 to lead again at 6–5." I could not find 92 in the article. Is this the correct number?
  • Ref 114: "before frame 19 lasted over an hour," I could not find this information in the source.

I'll finish the final later. Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's finish this up. This spot check has already ruined my news algorithm. I have so many articles about snooker on my phone now....

Refs checked: 12, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132

Ref 110: "but they had not met at the event since the 2007 semi-final, which Selby won 17–16" I could not verify this in the source.

Ref 119: "and been runner-up in 2009 and 2015;" Was not able to verify this.

Ref 119: " Selby was playing in his fifth final, having won the event in 2014, 2016, and 2017, and been runner-up in 2007." Was not able to verify this.

Ref 126: "After a safety battle, Selby won the next frame with a break of 120, and was one frame away from victory at 17–13." This is not on this page of the source, and it probably needs to be cited to page three.

All done. Please ping once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • All covered Z1720. Thanks again for taking a look. I won't apologise for your algorithms. There's plenty of cue sports articles to do up if you get interested ;)
      • Pass. I won't make a declaration as I haven't looked at other parts of the article. As for writing snooker articles, we'll see if I can learn enough snooker to write intelligently about it... Z1720 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose edit

I'll do a fuller read-through after the responses to Z1720's review, but a couple of things for now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: "It was organised by the World Snooker Tour, a subsidiary of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association." - suggest amending this (see Talk:2022_World_Snooker_Championship#Ownership of World Snooker Tour)
    • Sure, I've made this change. I will eventually go through all of the articles, but time dependent! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage: "Internationally" seems superfluous.
  • "an Events Research Programme" - perhaps "the Events Research Programme" as it seems this is the title of it. (link)
  • Refs 1, 2 and 16 should have WPBSA removed.
  • Some script shows ref 20 as having a "cite web: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)" message
  • Inconsistency between using wst.tv (e.g. refs 1,2, 137, 138), World Snooker (e.g. refs 13, 25) or World Snooker Tour (e.g. refs 24, 130)
  • Can probably do without the "– WPBSA" in ref 134 and the "– World Snooker" in refs 5 and 24
  • "A record number of 108 century breaks were made by 22 players during the main event" doesn't quite read right to me. I'm not a good writer and will defer to others, but maybe something like "A record number of century breaks, 108, was made during the main event. There were 22 players that made at least one century break." ?
  • Ref 97 (the BBC video): I only watched it once, but I don't think it verifies "which other players such as O'Sullivan had also attempted." As mentioned above, I'll re-read after the source review. Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of inconsistency in picture captions, e.g. Wilson has "(pictured in 2018)" but the pic of Selby doesn't have "(pictured in 2016)". As all the player pictures are from 2015 or later, can probably either omit or include the "(pictured in ..." for all. I can't see any other issues at the moment. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi BennyOnTheLoose, I was wondering if you wished to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Compare [1] and [5]: you have wst.tv as the website for one, and WST for the other. Looking through your citations I see you mostly use "work= " when you are putting in the title of the website (e.g. "BBC Sport") and "website=" when you're putting in the domain (e.g. "snooker.org"). The two parameters are exactly the same parameter; one is an alias for the other. Can you make them consistent, in one direction or another? There's no harm in using the domain if there really is no name for the website, but that's rare. I would suggest using the name rather than the domain in general.
    • Sure. I've actually never had this explained to me, thanks for that. I've made a change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      A couple more: oe24.at -> OE24; thestar.co.uk -> The Star; livescores.worldsnookerdata.com -> WST. You also have "cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk" for [3] and "Chris Turner's Snooker Archive" as the publisher; that should be the website/work, and you don't need a publisher because it's really just "Chris Turner" so is evident from website name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive link for [87] doesn't work, presumably because it's paywalled.
  • The archive link for [129] goes to page 2 instead of page 3.
  • worldsnooker.com now redirects to WST; if those links can be updated to point to WST it would be useful, but not necessary for FA.

What makes the following reliable sources?

  • cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
    • Chris Turner (who sadly died in 2011) is pretty much the best statistical source for pre-2011 snooker information, info after this time is best handled by snooker.org. He's the guy who did the statistics for Eurosport and the official tour.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there any evidence that he did the stats for Eurosports and the tour? That would make this acceptable. Without some evidence that he was treated as reliable by official organizations I don't think this meets the FA criteria bar. I had a quick look and found a blog entry from Snooker Scene, which is reliable, saying they referred to it; that's a good start. Is there more than that we can point to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is Eurosport calling him a snooker historian, and used as a citation for Masters of the Baize from a quick scan. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That might be enough, but what you're using the source for seems like it would be easy to source elsewhere. For example, Clive Everton's Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards sources most of it, and I think you can get all of it from Williams & Gadsby's Snooker's World Champions; both those are viewable on Google Books. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, that's fair, but the archive is used on pretty much every snooker article and would be a bit crazy to remove a reliable source wholesale. I don't particularly see the issue with using Turner's archive; but I can change out to Cue Ball Wizards or similar on this article if necessary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Striking, but I would recommend making the source change anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • globalsnookercentre.co.uk -- seems to be run by a group of gamblers rather than an editorial organization of any kind
    • I think there was more to it than that, but it's only used once, so I removed it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • snooker.org -- looks like this is run by a single person
  • sportingfree.com
  • snookerhq.com
    • I still think this one is reliable, but the info is in the May issue of Snooker Scene, so I've swapped. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • livescores.worldsnookerdata.com
    • This one is the official website (see wst.tv), it just has a different domain for their live scores.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Mike, is it just your first bullet point left for Lee to address? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the dead archive link should really be removed, but that wouldn't hold up a pass, so it's just the first point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now made these changes (hopefully I didn't miss any). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pass. Lee, I tweaked the Chris Turner citation -- you had "Chris Turner's Snooker Archive" as the publisher, but that's actually the website. The publisher is Chris Turner, but there's no need to use a publisher field because that's obvious from the website name -- e.g. one doesn't put in "New York Times" as the publisher when the website is "New York Times". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 23 April 2022 (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/2021_World_Snooker_Championship/archive3&oldid=1084684204"