Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2024

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 3 August 2024 [1].

Letterpress (video game)

edit
Nominator(s): TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Letterpress. A shining gem among a sea of cheap, soulless, free-to-play mobile games. A game that touches players with its simplicity, designed entirely from the ingenuity of Loren Brichter. What better way to spend time than battling it out with words you had no idea existed until you pulled up the dictionary to cheat?

When I first met this article, it was but a mere three sentences. Over the course of (nearly) a year, I began to expand the article to its fullest potential. I put it up for peer review (twice), and it passed GA status in an instant. At that moment, I knew what had to be done. I brought it to FAC, learned from that review, and requested for a copyedit at WP:GOCE/R. I even learned Inkscape! (Great tool, by the way.) Now I'm here. To say that I am satisfied that this article is no longer a stub is an understatement. I hope to make history and achieve my very first featured article. Thank you, TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to the following users who have reviewed this article before: @Aoba47, @David Fuchs, @Mike Christie, and @Teratix. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 14:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. Unfortunately, I am currently taking a break from reviewing, but best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I would like to request for this nomination to be closed early per Teratix's comments; the article needs more work. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UC

edit
  • I must admit that I find the explanation of how the game actually works pretty confusing. I think we need to start with the idea that both players are given the same grid of letters -- if I've got it right, you then have to draw from those letters to make words, and doing so gives you that many points and "locks" any tiles where you've got (two of? all of?) the tiles touching it?
    • Correct. FYI, a tile can be locked if all the tiles directly adjacent to it are selected (sorry if that's worded weirdly, I just woke up).
  • Some quite basic statements seem overcited: do we really need four different sources to say that there are two players and 25 tiles? One is the Manchester Evening News, which is pretty low-grade source, put mildly.
    • I was unsure how to use the sources Teratix provided me, so I figured, "Why not overcite everything? That's using sources, right?"
    • Update: I have now limited the amount of sources in the gameplay section.
      • Also, most of the sources I found repeated the same information.
  • The copyright claim on the three images is potentially dubious to me -- I know they are your own work, but they are also pretty clearly derivative works of the original game. Now, that game itself is only made up of basic shapes, letters and colours, but there's a lot of distinctive combination of those that, at least to my non-expert mind, would seem to pass the threshold of originality. Now, there's a very possible fair-use rationale for including a visual demonstration of how a game's fundamental gameplay loop works, but we'd need to upload the images locally to Wikipedia and write one of those.
    • Sorry, do you want me to reupload the image locally to Wikipedia as "non-free"?
    TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 22:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to get a more expert opinion on the image's copyright status, but my view is that it is non-free. If that's the case, the only way to include it in an article is to upload it to Wikipedia (not Commons) and write an explanation as to why we should be allowed to use it, despite its copyrighted status. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note, we can't claim the icon as the "own work" of the uploader. We could probably claim that it is ineligible for copyright because it only consists of simple geometric shapes: that would need {{PD-textlogo}}.
    • Added.
  • I find the lead leaves a few loose ends, or unanswered questions: take, for example, The gameplay gradually evolved during beta testing; in the prototype, players would avoid using unclaimed tiles, leading to excessively long games.. The obvious question raised here is "so what did they do about it?", and that's not answered until the body.
    • Added information about solution.
  • it was criticized for not having a single-player mode: later in the body, we talk about it having one, so presumably this was added later? Similarly to the above, I know that we can't include every detail in the lead, but we should avoid giving a misleading impression to readers who only read the lead.
    • Yes. The bot mode was added at some point after the game's initial release. I'm not sure if removing it is gonna satisfy this point, but I'll do it anyway.
  • two players compete to claim the most colored tiles on a grid of 25 letters: most colored is ambiguous: the most (coloured tiles) or the (most coloured) tiles?
    • First option. Removed "colored".
  • Loren Brichter, the founder of Atebits 2.0: the footnote says a bit about why there was an Atebits 2.0, but I think we probably need to give a bit more context about what Atebits 1.0 was.
  • Brichter saw Letterpress as a way to experiment with new software: what new software?
    • According to this source, Brichter states, "With the Letterpress idea, a whole bunch of things happened to align that made that an obvious thing to pursue: games had taken over the App Store, I wanted to try a free app, and I wanted to test a whole bunch of other technologies." He doesn't really elaborate what he wanted to experiment with, unless I'm missing something here.
    • Furthermore, he states, "One of my complaints about design of iOS is it’s doing things that aren’t true to the hardware."
  • players could indiscriminately create long words: indiscriminately is not the right word here (that means "without thinking about it"): try "freely"?
    • That's the word I was looking for! Changed.
  • The link on pressing letters to letterpress printing is a bit of an easter egg: I think we need to spell out that it's a pun with a double meaning.
    • I'm doubting it's named after that: Explained allusion. "[Federico Vitici]: Why the name Letterpress? That evokes some print memories to me. Which is kind of anachronistic. -> [Loren Brichter]: Totally. The name just kind of grew on me. And the whole game is you pressing your letters with your finger. Letterpress. Not sure. Just liked it."
  • Brichter marketed Letterpress as freemium... why is this paragraph in the past tense?
    • Changed surrounding text. It turns the "freemium plan" was before the Solebon acquisition. As of right now, players can change themes, play unlimited games, and see their previously played words for free, so I'm gonna change it back to past tense.
  • Letterpress has a "generally favorable" Metacritic rating based on eight critics: advise putting an as of on this statement (and checking it fairly regularly!)
    • I don't think that's necessary. Most video game articles I've seen don't add that + there hasn't been a new review for about a decade.
  • Reviewers found the strategic elements of Letterpress engaging, comparing it to Scrabble, Reversi, Connect Four, Go, SpellTower, Words With Friends, and chess.: that's a lot of different comparisons. Can we say anything about how they compared it with each of these games?
    • I'll try to examine the sources once more.
  • Game Center, Apple's multiplayer network service: I would explain what this is on first mention, rather than second. Does it still use Game Center when it's on Google Play, for example?
    • Changed.
  • Despite Wiskus acknowledging the negative impact on user experience, he mitigated it with iMessage. He also highlighted the friction in initiating rematches, which led to simultaneous matches between players: I don't really understand what either of these sentences mean.
    • Simplified.
  • Letterpress was among a list of minimalist apps provided to inspire Jony Ive, a designer for Apple's iOS 7: provided by whom?
    • Doesn't say (unless I'm overlooking something here): "Along with music app Rdio, word game Letterpress, and competing task app Clear, Any.do was among the apps that Apple looked to for inspiration as it redesigned iOS, according to people familiar with the matter. When Jony Ive took over as the company’s head of design, he was given a list of forward-looking apps that suggested how iOS could evolve..."
  • Looking at the last FAC, I'm not sure the sources provided by User:Teratix have been fully incorporated -- in such a short article, we have the luxury of space to talk about how the game has been studied, for example.
    • Shoot! I was hoping that would get solved.

I suspect I'm at a bit of a disadvantage knowing very little about the topic, but in other ways that makes me the target audience -- I don't really get the feeling, at the moment, that I fully know what's going on, whereas there are plenty of current FAs that manage to hold your hand, even as a complete newcomer, so that you at last feel comfortable that you are getting the information with the context you need to understand it. It's a short article at the moment, and perhaps a bit more could go into padding out the explanations and context? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I may be a little late with your comments. I picked a bad time to nominate this article because of how busy my life is getting now. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 05:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BP!

edit

Hello there! I'll try what I can to bring up all of the article's possible issues after partial reviewing the article (Also, can you review my Ada Wong's FAC if you're able to? =) ).

  • There are a lot of ref bombs in the article currently. Pls, bundle the citations that have been cited from more than 3 sources.
    • Will examine the sources I have been provided with (if time pertains).
    • Update: Limited the number of references in the gameplay section.
  • Remove ScreenRant source as low-quality source
    • That's the only source I could find that covers the single-player bot mode, plus WP:VG/S states that Screen Rant is "deemed reliable enough" for any non-controversial statements.
  • At ref 15, pls italicize the publication
    • Done.
  • "Matthew Panzarino of The Next Web and Federico Viticci" Who is Federico Viticci? Add the publication/website
    • Whoops. Added.
  • Unsure about the Macstories reliability.
    • MacStories follows their guidelines listed here ("What Guides Us"). Additionally, they have an experienced editor team, and they don't do paid reviews.
  • What makes 9to5Mac reliable?
    • Zac Hall has written for the Clarion-Ledger newspaper (USA Today), and they even state that they have been cited by NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, the Financial Times, and others. Also, they don't do sponsored reviews.

🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vacant0

edit

Will leave some comments. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Situational sources like Screen Rant and The Next Web can stay in the article because they're not used in controversial statements. I do not see any other issues with referencing.
    • Noted. (nice)
  • I think that you could specify which colours in the Gameplay section.
    • There are multiple themes in the game, so the game can be in various colors other than red and blue.
      • If there's a source for that, you could add it to the article.
  • Are all three images really needed in the article? I think that one image demonstrating the gameplay is enough in the article. You should also probably re-upload it to Wikipedia as a non-free image, even though it is a recreation and not an actual screenshot of a game... Or you could instead upload an actual screenshot of the game. It's up to you.
    • I did the second thing, but in the previous FAC review, Teratix (I believe) told me to recreate the game in Inkscape. I will upload the game locally if I have the time.
  • Do we know which side projects? Software or video games?
    • Does not say. This source states that he left Twitter to work on "personal projects", while in this source, he states: "What happened was after I left Twitter I had this massive backlog of ideas going back five, six years. Stuff I was thinking about in college and I just didn't have time to work on it. When I left, I just plowed through my old to-do list. I ended up making a dozen or so things, most of which will never see the light of day, but Letterpress was one of those things."
  • I assume new software for iPhone? I think that this should be clarified a bit.
    • Clarified; added "Apple".
  • Do we know how was the game advertised, considering that it was downloaded over 60,000 times on the release day.
    • Nope. I do remember a fragment of an interview saying that he did use plain and simple gameplay screenshots for the App Store, but that's pretty much about as far as marketing goes.
      • That's amazing.

Oppose from Teratix

edit

(responding to ping) I've had a look at the changes compared to the last time this was at FAC and my view hasn't changed: there's a lot of good material going underused. There's a lot of cases (e.g. Game Developer and Wired, which I already pointed out at the last FAC) where a source gets cited a few times but the article doesn't actually incorporate any of its information. The answer isn't to cut back on the number of sources – the answer is to make the article longer and use more details from the sources, especially when you have a reviewer without background coming in and finding things difficult to understand without more explanation and context.

To be honest, this is an issue too fundamental for an FAC to sort out at the moment. The article needed a substantial rewrite to properly integrate the new sources at the previous FAC, and that hasn't been done. So I'm opposing on these grounds, but I also want to give some comment on the media issue.

As anyone who has tried to explain a familiar game to new players knows, it can be supremely difficult to convey a sense of how things work when you rely only on your words. So, particularly for featured status (criterion 3), it greatly benefits this article to have some decent illustration of how the game mechanics function. However, as UndercoverClassicist has mentioned, aiming to replicate the game's interface in an illustration – colours, shapes, font, spatial arrangement and all – is likely not compatible with our copyright obligations. Rather than replicating or even mimicking what the player sees, we should be trying to illustrate the concepts the player will come across during gameplay – selecting tiles, compiling words, locking tiles, scoring. (Apologies, my comments at the last FAC didn't make this distinction at all clear).

My tentative, non-expert understanding is that gameplay concepts in themselves are not copyrightable elements, only the specific way in which they are expressed, so there should be some way to illustrate how these concepts work without actually copying the look of how they're implemented in Letterpress. It is a bit of a thorny question to work through, but getting the illustrations right is going to help this article a lot. I would perhaps ask about these issues at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to get some better-informed opinions.

Throwing up our hands and saying "just stick to a non-free screenshot" would be convenient, but I don't think it would be for the best. A single screenshot doesn't properly illustrate the gameplay loop. – Teratix ₵ 04:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! You've brought up some neat points I didn't see coming. Really thought I had the whole comprehensive article thing solved... oh well. Thanks for responding! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 04:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 1 August 2024 [2].

2003 World Snooker Championship

edit
Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2003 World Snooker Championship. I look forward to any comments you might have.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

edit
  • File:Embassy World Snooker 2003-05 logo.png: Not copyrightable, although it could probably be vectorised - this isn't important for the FAC though.
  • File:Ronnie O'Sullivan PHC 2011-1.png: CC-BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Stephen Lee PHC 2011-1.png: CC-BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Ken Doherty.jpg: CC-BY-SA 3.0 & GNU Free Documentation License.
  • File:Mark Williams at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-05 01.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0
  • Some of these images have the persons facing right: this is usually recommended to be left-justified according to MOS:IMAGELOC, although I have been told that this is not strictly a FA criteria requirement.
  • Images have proper alt-text.
  • It might be worthwhile to note that these are not images of them at this specific event in the captions — I initially thought so until I saw the dates myself. I believe that falls under prose though, so Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Joeyquism

edit

Should get to this soon; end of Saturday (America time) at the latest. joeyquism (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee! I've listed some things that I noticed below; feel free to refuse with justification:

  • Before Gog comes through, you should change the reference titles to be all in title or sentence case - there's an extension to assist in this if needed. Additionally, appropriate web/news links should be archived if they can (I'm sure you are familiar, but I would suggest using IABot here).
    • I only just learned about this script the other day. I've run it, but it does cause some issues with mobile view, so I have to install it each time I need to run it, which isn't ideal. I do run IABot, however, due to some localising, some news sites cannot be archived through IABot (the Eurosport.co.uk links), so I've archived where I can. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overview looks great. Snooker terms that I would have otherwise not been familiar with are wikilinked appropriately, and are described in a way that is clear and isn't overwhelming. I would, however, suggest moving the footnote [a] to be after "modern era".
  • This was the fifth maximum compiled at the world championships; the first since O'Sullivan at the 1997 World Championship. - I'm not sure of the use of the semicolon here. I think "and the first" with a comma would read a little bit better.
  • In an all Scottish clash... - I believe that "all Scottish" should be hyphenated here.
  • ...whilst Hunter perhaps drew on his two Masters finals wins to motivate him in the deciding frame. - Could you provide the text in the original literature that corroborates the "perhaps" in this sentence?
  • Mark Williams defeated seven-time champion and close friend Stephen Hendry 13–7. - I'm not sure of the relevance of including "close friend" here; it seems a bit extraneous.
  • The final was officiated by the Netherlands' Jan Verhaas, the youngest referee at a world final. - Has this been superseded by anyone else? I would word it a bit differently if so (something like "then the youngest referee to oversee a world final until [name] in [year]") but I understand if this is not appropriate.
    Just noticed this @Lee Vilenski & @Joeyquism. FYI, Verhaas (aged 36 in 2003) is no longer the youngest to referee a world final. Paul Collier was 33 in 2004 and Marcel Eckardt was 30 in 2020. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for alerting us of this! In that case, I would say that the proposed revision would be better suited here, if you can find a source for Paul Collier's age in 2004. joeyquism (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly found very little wrong with this article; most of it is already very well-written and comprehensive. As someone unfamiliar with snooker, I feel like I learned a lot from your clear elaborations. After these initial comments are addressed, I'll give it another read and see if I find anything wrong - if not, I will likely come back to take a supportive stance. Apologies if I came off as pedantic; however, I do hope that this review was at least a little bit helpful. Thank you for all your hard work, and I hope you have a great day! joeyquism (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats exactly what I look for in a review. I want the article to be better after recieving one. I'll take a look in a mo. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee Vilenski, I note that you are away on holiday. I hope that you are enjoying yourself. I note that you have not commented here for five weeks. While RL obviosly comes first, can I point you towards the rule "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly". I will give you another couple of days, but this nomination is in imminent danger of being archived for inactivity, which would be a shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I don't think Lee Vilenski would have received a ping on the 25th, but hopefully will now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been a week since the prod and Lee hasn't popped up to address the piled-up comments, archiving for now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HurricaneHiggins

edit
Global comment
edit

This article feels rather "thin" to me in comparison with other World Championship tournament articles that have Featured Article status. For instance, the summary section mentions nothing about the qualifiers and doesn't even mention who the debutants were in that year. The first-round summary mentions just 4 matches out of a possible 16 and the second-round summary also mentions just 4 matches out of a possible 8. And some of these mentions are just "this guy beat that guy." I would have liked the summary to go into a bit more depth and detail in order to convey more of a flavour of the tournament.

Lead
edit
  • "This was the 27th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship had been held at the Crucible, marking the 26th anniversary of the first staging of the event at this venue." This feels both confusing and redundant. How about "This was the 27th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible, where it was first staged in 1977."
  • "became another first-time champion to fall to the Crucible curse" ... another? Of how many?
  • O'Sullivan's maximum break and his achievement in becoming the first player to make multiple Crucible 147s are surely lead-worthy?
  • In my view, the lead should mention who the debutants were that year and also give the century break total for the tournament.
Overview
edit
  • This section mentions the popularity of snooker in China, Hong Kong, and Thailand, using references from 2015 and later. But this article is about the 2003 tournament, and so we seem to be talking about stuff that hasn't quite happened yet in the sport. Yes, the main stage featured two Asian players (Fu and Wattana), but Ding Junhui had not even turned pro yet, and so it seems premature to be talking about China in particular.
  • I would suggest moving the sentences about Joe Davis and the tournament moving to the Crucible to the start of the paragraph in which they feature.
  • "It was the ninth and last ranking event of the 2002–03 snooker season on the World Snooker Tour." Note that the brand "World Snooker Tour" was introduced as part of a 2020 rebrand of World Snooker. It didn't exist in 2003. People typically referred to the "main tour" at that time.
  • "The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 13 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 17 in the semi-finals; the final match was played as best-of-35-frames." It seems confusing to mix "best of" and "first to". "The second-round and quarter-final matches were the best of 25 frames, the semi-finals were best of 33, and the final was best of 35" would be more consistent.
  • "This was the fifth maximum compiled at the world championships and the first since O'Sullivan at the 1997 World Championship." This makes it sound like O'Sullivan himself is a maximum break. I'd suggest "This was the fifth maximum compiled at the World Championship and the first since O'Sullivan's maximum at the 1997 event."
  • "a 132 break in his first round match" -- hyphenate first-round match.
  • "Ebdon lead 4–3 ..." Should read "Ebdon led 4–3"
Quarter-finals
edit
  • "The quarter-final was played" -- should be "The quarter-finals were played"
Semi-finals
edit
  • "A condensed version of the match was showcased on BBC Two on 28 April 2020 in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship which was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic." How relevant is this? Or is it an example of recentism bias?
Final
edit
  • "Jan Verhaas, the youngest referee at a world final." The article should probably note that while this was true at the time, Verhaas (then aged 36) is no longer the youngest to referee a world final. He was superseded in the 2004 final by Paul Collier (then aged 33), who in turn was superseded in the 2020 final by Marcel Eckardt (then aged 30).
  • "Williams took an early lead in the final, leading at 6–2 after the first session, and extended the lead to 10–2 in the second session." Overly verbose. "Williams led 6–2 after the first session and extended his lead to 10–2 in the second session."
  • "On the resumption in the third session, Doherty won six frames in-a-row" -- I'd suggest "In the third session, Doherty won six frames in a row" (do not hyphenate "in-a-row").
  • "The win allowed Williams to become world number one again, the first player to regain the position under the current ranking system and only the second overall after Ray Reardon." This may need clarification. The "current" rolling ranking system (in 2024) is different from the annual ranking system that was in effect up to 2010. And the sentence suggests that Reardon regained the number one position under another, different ranking system. All this is confusing, even to someone familiar with snooker history.

Hope this is helpful. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

edit

Some initial commments. I might do a fuller review later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are there particular reasons why this is significantly shorter than the article for, say, the 2002 edition of the tournament?
  • Why are there no details about the qualifying competition? I don't think we want full results as there were so many of them, but looks like there was some bizarre set-up with different pre-qualifying competitions for non-WPBSA members, WPBSA members (non-tour), and WPBSA challenge tour members, followed by six qualifying rounds.
  • "There were a total of 120 entrants from the tour" - not verified by the source, and I don't think it is accurate.
  • Prize fund has the Highest pre-TV break prize but not the money awarded for Last 48/64/80/96/128 round losers.
  • The article doesn't mention who won the Highest pre-TV break prize.
  • "The next two frames were tied" - I don't think this is the intended phrase.
  • "However, Fu won the match 10–6" - is this supported by Almanac p161? (I'm guessing not)
  • "a 42-minute final frame" - can some context be given, or the duration removed?
  • I dislike "all-Scottish clash", but support for this is in the source.
  • "defeated seven-time champion Stephen Hendry" - why only mention his titles at the fourth instance of his name?
  • I see HH above queried "A condensed version of the match was showcased on BBC Two on 28 April 2020 in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship which was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic" - I'd suggest removing it.
  • "He was only the third player to win these three events in a single season and is the most recent player to have achieved this" - suggest rewording as the source is from 2003 and he may not always be "the most recent player to have achieved this"
  • "With three of his matches going to a deciding frame, Doherty played 132 out of a possible 137 frames in the tournament, a record for the modern era, with only his quarter final win over Higgins having been decided by more than two frames" - not all supported by the source. Adding Downer's Almanac as a source should sort this.
  • Main draw - I checked a couple of the references against the dates and they didn't verify all of the info (e.g. dates on which matches were played.) Perhaps these are redundant as you have cited the Crucible Almanac, which I'm sure has all of the session dates.
  • I know opinions vary about the best way to present the scores from the final, but personally I dislike this one which has the scores twice.
  • Caption "Ken Doherty was six frames behind, but won 17–16." - maybe add the round, or the opponent?
  • Ref 3 - "worldsnooker.com. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association" World Snooker and WPBSA are, and I think were in 2003, related but different organisations.
  • Some other citations are inconsistent, e.g. "Peter Ebdon "I'm Delighted". BBC." but "Williams Takes Centre Stage". news.bbc.co.uk"; the snooker.org citations
  • I've corrected the authors for the Snooker Scene articles and made some other tweaks to them - please check that these changes are OK.
  • Lead "The championships were sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy." is not included in the body, so is uncited.
  • Format: "It was the ninth and last ranking event of the 2002–03 snooker season on the World Snooker Tour." not supported by sources. The BBC source is about a different season, and the snooker.org source has "WPBSA ranking tournament (#8 of 8)"
  • Tournament summary - you could add a cuegloss link to "sessions" at the first instance.

Comments by RoySmith

edit
  • The World Snooker Championship is a professional tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker . [1] It's unclear if the source supports calling it "the official world championship".
  • Founded in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, [2] What makes snookerheritage.co.uk a WP:RS? Also, the source says "already popular at his club in Rangoon (Burma)", so it looks like it was invented in Burma, not India.
  • There were a total of 120 entrants from the tour .... [15] I can't find where the source says that.
  • The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players. As defending champion, Peter Ebdon was seeded first for the event, with world number 1 Ronnie O'Sullivan seeded 2; the remaining seeds were allocated based on the players' world ranking positions. [16] I see where it says Ebdon was the number one seed, but can't find any of the other stuff.
  • The opening round was played from 19 to 24 April as the best-of-19 frames, held over two sessions. Ronnie O'Sullivan compiled a maximum break in his first-round match against Marco Fu , making him the first player to have scored two 147s at the venue. This was the fifth maximum compiled at the world championships and the first since O'Sullivan at the 1997 World Championship . [19] Two issues here. First, Chris Turner's Snooker Archive looks like a self-hosted blog, so not a WP:RS. Second, it doesn't say any of those things.
  • Ebdon lead 4–3 but then won six frames in a row to win. Ebdon thanked stronger contact lenses for his ability to stay in the match. [22] [23] citation 23 is not much more than a Wikipedia:Bare URL. It gets you to some piece of RTSP content and then immediately closes the connection. There's no enough information in the citation to find it through other means, so I'd say this fails WP:PUBLISH.
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:06, 1 August 2024 (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/Archived_nominations/August_2024&oldid=1238306860"