Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1984 World Snooker Championship/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [1].

1984 World Snooker Championship

edit
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC), User:BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the World Snooker Championship event in 1984. A year before the blackball final, Steve Davis won his third world championship. He defeated Jimmy White in the final, which was White's first of six losses at this stage! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah

edit

I am reviewing the prose of the article. I will leave the source checking to the editors more experienced in this realm of Wikipedia. If you could review one of my GANs in return, that would be great. NoahTalk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting on prose! NoahTalk 01:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

edit

Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 10:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl

edit

Not a topic I am familiar with, but the article is in good shape and I'm leaning toward support. I have a few comments:

Coordinator notes

edit

I have added this to the Urgents list hoping to get more feedback. Otherwise, it will need to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720

edit

NOTE: It has been many years since I reviewed an FAC, so disregard comments if they are not applicable. I will do a more in-depth review later today, but here are some preliminary thoughts:

  • "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players.[a] As defending champion, Steve Davis was seeded first for the event; the remaining 15 seeds were allocated based on world rankings for the previous season." Can you use a synonym for "seed"? It's a lot of the same word in two sentences.
  • "Eight-time former world champion Fred Davis won his match against Jim Donnelly 10–5 to become the oldest player in the main competition, at the age of 70." This sentence confused me. Do you mean Davis was the oldest player to qualify for the main competition? I would restructure this sentence to clarify.
  • "One player, Canadian John Bear, was scheduled to play but did not" Do any sources say why he did not play? I won't oppose if this information is missing.

Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • In the qualifying section, it says "Eight-time former world champion Fred Davis won his match against Jim Donnelly 10–5 to become the oldest player in the main competition, at the age of 70" and then in First Round it says "Aged 70 years and 253 days, he became the tournament's oldest-ever player." It sounds like you are stating the same fact twice (if a person is the oldest player to ever compete in a World Snooker Championship, then I can logically conclude that he's the oldest player in the tournament.) Pick one place to state this information.
  • "Many of the matches had emphatic scorelines." After reading the scored in the subsequent sentence, I am confused why these matches were "emphatic". Is this sentence trying to say that the matches were lopsided victories for one player? I think there are better words to use here to instantly convey meaning to the reader.
  • "Knowles, who had been the only player to beat Steve Davis in the World Championship in the previous three years, with a 10–1 surprise win over Davis in the first round in 1982, lost 7–10 to John Parrott." This feels like it's meandering because the sidebar of the sentence (everything from "who had been" to "in 1982") is too long. Consider restructuring or deleting "with a 10-1 surprise win over Davis in the first round in 1982"
  • "There were eight centuries in the championship" I would wikify century.

Those are all my comments. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. I support promoting this article to FA. Z1720 (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TRM

edit

That's what I have on a first run. I think most of them are easily dealt with but the "legacy" of the match needs much more coverage as far as I can see. For example, I imagine White and Davis both mention this in their autobiographies, so that should be covered. Who was favourite to win, what did commentators and the players say after the match? Etc etc. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Benny, was there any post-match conferences? I've added a little on what the players went on to do, specifically about White, but needs a little more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to confirm, Benny, there's only two things I have outstanding from above - is there anything additional for the qualifiers that covers a few more players? Also, have you got anything further for the legacy section. Also, how did the prize money work? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll have another look for info about qualifying, but generally there was a lot less press coverage available pre-1985 than post 1985. (e.g. NewsBank has 45 or 55 snooker articles each calendar year for 1982 to 1984; 292 for 1985; and over 600 articles a year for the rest of the 80's.) For legacy, I've got Davis's latest autobiography (signed by him in-person!) and coincidentally I picked up White's 2015 one from the library last weekend. I also have some other stuff that may help. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added an additional paragraph (and a bit) regarding the legacy TRM, is this the sort of thing you are looking for? I'm yet to find much particularly notable about the commentary team, but I've added bits on the competitors post-match comments, as well as their futures, and even a little on Jimmy's drug use (might be too far, a little tangental?) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a look at this today. I can see several issues in the refs (e.g. inconsistent ISBN formats, publisher names in article titles, inconsistent author name format, etc) so those will all need to be resolved too. I'll try to list them out later. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man - I removed the Guardian ProQuest links as there were no urls and access to that database is quite difficult (e.g. for me I need to be on-site at the British Library), whereas there are other easier ways to get access to old Guardian articles - e.g. via newspapers.com. I'm thinking that I should probably also remove all the "via The Times Digital Archive" statements, as, without a url, that info is not very useful. What do you think? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  • General - yeah, if you’re not linking to the archive, not sure you need the "via" in each case.
  • Now linked at first instance.
  • Ref 4 vs Ref 5 vs Ref 6 etc - format of "Snooker Scene" is inconsistent.
  • Ref 2 vs Ref 14 vs Ref 18 - inconsistent snookerdatabase format.
  • Ref 19 etc - Crucible Almanac has no publisher, ISBN etc.
  • Refs 25, 52 - can you demonstrate that cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk is RS?
    • This one is discussed a lot. The site itself was written by Chris Turner (now sadly deceased), a noted "snooker historian"[2], [3], [4], was the statistician for Eurosport for many years. Various conversations about the reliability of the source have been discussed at WT:SNOOKER, but never really come up to much of a consensus. What I do see, is that this source is used almost as a defacto resource for results across wikipedia, so we may need to look further into this. My experience is that we take into account where else the author has written when discussing reliability of the source itself. Happy to look for a replacement if not suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 29 - just checking, no author information?
  • Ref 45 vs Ref 1 - you have Global Snooker in non-italics but World Snooker in italics, what’s the logic?
  • Ref 56 - publisher, why not consistent, i.e. BBC Sport?
  • Ref 57 - no need for website title in ref title.
  • Ref 58 - no need for website title in ref title.
  • Ref 63 - can link author, and should be pp. 78–81. And it should be Second Wind.
  • Ref 65 - is that in German, if so language=German
  • Ref 66 - if using "snooker.org", that’s presumably a website, so italics.

The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Ref 6 and ref 29 need consistency.
  • ISBNs still not formatted consistently.
  • I suggest if you link each work/publisher each time, you should link each author (where possible) each time.
  • Ref 25 and ref 50 need consistency.
  • Ref 62 needs an en-dash.
  • Ref 54 is definitely BBC Sport, not BBC.

The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, I think I'm done here. Really good work both Lee Vilenski and BennyOnTheLoose, happy to support this now. Oh, and I might submit this paltry offering to the WikiCup if it's deemed suitable... Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Image use and licence are OKish, as are their locations. ALT text is so-so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Please work with Jo-Jo Eumerus to determine what can be improved here and polish it up. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Jo-Jo Eumerus, could you be a little more specific? I'm a little shaky on what things should/should not go under commons licenses. There's three images in the article, so I've tried to add what I can (and I had missed an ALT, which I've amended.) Anything that I need to do, let me know. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I am a little uncertain too. The thing with the ALT text here is that "Photo of " is arguably unnecessary; ALT text doesn't need to describe the image, just provide the same essential information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No issues, in that case, I have removed these from the alt text. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was there anything else Laser brain or Jo-Jo Eumerus? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 October 2020 (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/1984_World_Snooker_Championship/archive1&oldid=985104250"