Talk:2023 World Seniors Championship

Prize fund?

What was the prize fund? What did the winner receive? MisterRerack (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't find that information anywhere. For 2022, Snooker Scene reported that Walker received £10,000 as winner, but our article has £15,000. The entry pack for the Golden Ticket says that first-round losers at the Crucible were guaranteed at least £1,000. Maybe Snooker Scene will have some details when it's published in June. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That would be the only solution - I am yet to find anything from a good search Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2023 World Seniors Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 16:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey, BennyOnTheLoose and HurricaneHiggins. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this nomination. I see you already have a fair amount of GAs prior, so I don't foresee many issues here (though I will of course be assessing it properly against the criteria). I look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

"Overview" section

• The 14th edition of the World Seniors Championship, first held in 1991 (emphasis mine) - The bolded words aren't verified in any of the sources
• LLP Solicitors - Maybe explain what LLP Solicitors is? E.g. "law firm LLP Solicitors"
• who were ranked outside the top 64 in the snooker world rankings - This isn't verified in the sources.

ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've added "law firm" and references. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Participants

• further five players reached the main draw by winning qualifying events - The source only lists four qualifiers. I'd suggest finding a way to write about how the Golden Ticket qualifier was added later. The source currently only verifies four of them.

• I've tried to make it clearer that there were four qualifying events, plus a separate Golden Ticket playoff event HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Ben Hancorn won the first event, held from 28 to 30 October 2022, beating Alfie Burden 4–2 in the final. Gerard Greene won the second event, held from 13 to 15 January 2023, with a 4–2 win over Philip Williams in the final. Burden won the third event, held from 17 to 19 February 2023, defeating Peter Lines 4–3 in the final. Lines won the fourth event, held from 10 to 12 March 2023, beating Andrew Norman 4–2 in the final
  • These sentences just read like a list, repeating very similar information. Maybe find a way to rewrite this info.

• I've rephrased the sentences in question to make them less repetitive in structure. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• • The dates of the qualifiers aren't verified in the sources.

• I moved the dates of the qualifiers and the source now verifies them. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• as the qualifier ranked highest in the snooker world rankings - This isn't written in the source.

• The source notes "The seeds include the seven invited players and the next highest ranked place on the current World Snooker Tour rankings, who will be the eighth seed." We can give a list of the WST rankings in effect at the time, but I'd hope this is enough to indicate how Lines became the 8th seed, along with the seven invited players. HurricaneHiggins (talk)

ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Summary

• The word "whitewashed" is used very frequently in this section. Maybe remove some of them to vary the wording; in the first paragraph, it appears three sentences in a row. I'd suggest linking to Whitewash (sport) on first mention.

• Done! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• making a highest break of 60 - The source doesn't verify this (unless it's included somewhere in the video on the site and I just missed it).

• Fixed the source here. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Quarter-final matches were played as the best of seven frames on 6 May - The source itself states explicitly that they were best-of-five, though this seems to be a mistake considering they list the matches as being won by the player reaching four points. Are there better sources out there for this that explicitly state the the quarter-finals were best-of-seven?

ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've updated the source here to one by Eurosport, which shows that the quarter-finals were best of seven frames. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Main draw

Final

The information here is not verified. I'm not sure if the template allows references, but maybe include some prose with a citation that links to where you got the information (presumably from here?) ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Added that source, and another one for the venue. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

There is nothing to comment on here. Everything here is included in the body with citations. Some of the comments I made above in regards to failed verifications also apply here, so once that is handled, the information here will be verified too. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Image review

The images included in the article have appropriate licencing and are unlikely to be copyright violations. I'd suggest adding alt text to the images, though this is not a GA criterion. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added alt text - let me know if you have any suggestions for better descriptions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

First assessment

The article reaches most of the GA criteria, but falters on not containing any original research. A checklist follows below:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The issues about prose I have written above are not enough to detract from these criteria, but I'd still like you to take a look at them regardless.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Some of the information in the article cannot be verified with the sources given. Please provide further citations or remove unverifiable content.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There is only one thing to comment on that does not meet the GA criteria.

I'll put this article on hold until the above issue is rectified. I have no comments towards the other criteria, as they are all met. Good work so far. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking on the review, ArcticSeeress. I think we've responded to everything above, but let us know if more work is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with the state of the article now. I've looked through it again just in case I missed something obvious, and everything looks fine. I'll pass this nomination. Good work, you two! ArcticSeeress (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.