Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2019 [1].

1985 World Snooker Championship

edit
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the event surrounding the most famous snooker match of all time. The 1985 championship had Steve Davis, three times a champion of the world, unplayable, meet Northern Ireland's Dennis Taylor in the final. The event was murred with new drug testing laws, where this was the first snooker tournament to have players tested. The final, which Davis led 8-0 looked like it would be Davis' fourth title, before Taylor fought back to tie the match at 17-17, and be played on a deciding frame.

The final frame went all the way down to the final ball, with whoever potted the black ball would become champion - both players missed - Taylor finally potted the black to win his sole world championship. The match was known as the "black ball final" (for obvious reasons), lasted over the two days permitted, finishing in the early hours of Tuesday morning. The event made all sorts of records, including still holding the record for highest viewership of a broadcast after midnight in the United Kingdom (That includes Northern Ireland, if you were wondering). The event fell into folk status for snooker, and over 30 years on, the match, (and the event as a whole) is still relevant.

Article is one of my favourites to have worked on, and I feel it meets the criteria. Please let me know your thoughts, oppose/support, or any comments on the article as a whole. Thank you.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Hi Nikkimaria - thanks for taking a look. My knowledge if NFCC isn't great, and I just used to wizard to upload. I have added some information, but I'm not sure if it's enough. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodney Baggins

edit

@Lee Vilenski: I'm still working through the article but here are my first comments for you to look at:

Lead section (suggested wording changes)
→→ Yes looks fine. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ Fine by me. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Scoreline fixes
  • Tournament summary...
  • he lost to Wayne Jones, 10–6 > he lost to Wayne Jones, 6–10
  • before losing 10–2 > before losing 2–10
  • but lost 10–6 > but lost 6–10
  • First round...
  • to lead 5–8 but eventually lost 10–8 > to lead 8–5 but eventually lost 8–10
  • to trail 8–1 > to trail 1–8
→→ Ok. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Francisco trailed 8–1 > Francisco trailed 1–8
  • and lost the match 10–2 > and lost the match 2–10
  • lost the 1979 final to Terry Griffiths, 24–16 > lost the 1979 final to Terry Griffiths, 16–24
  • in the second session to trail 9–7 overnight. > in the second session to trail 7–9 overnight.
→→ Not sure what you mean by this. The subject of the scoreline has switched from Davis (who was leading 8–0) to Taylor who now trailed (7–9). You can't trail 9–7, that's a leading scoreline. Would be true to say Davis led 9–7 but not Taylor trailed 9–7. Taylor was at the wrong end of the 9–7 scoreline! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Missing player tags (when first mentioned in Tournament summary)
  • second-seed Tony Knowles and Tony Jones > second seed Tony Knowles and qualifier Tony Jones
  • won his match against Neal Foulds > won his match against qualifier Neal Foulds
  • defeating Willie Thorne 10–6 > defeating 12th seed Willie Thorne 10–6
  • defeating John Spencer 10–3 > defeating 13th seed John Spencer 10–3
  • during the season by Eugene Hughes > during the season by qualifier Eugene Hughes
  • Alex Higgins and Dean Reynolds > Alex Higgins and qualifier Dean Reynolds
  • defeated Ray Edmonds 10–8 > defeated qualifier Ray Edmonds 10–8
  • Rex Williams and Terry Griffiths > qualifier Rex Williams and eighth seed Terry Griffiths
  • but defeated Joe Johnson 10–8 > but defeated qualifier Joe Johnson 10–8
  • his first session against Dennis Taylor > his first session against 11th seed Dennis Taylor
→→ Yes you have a point but sometimes it just makes it a bit clearer. Also, if you look at the Knowles/Jones match at top of First round section, it says "between second seed Tony Knowles and Tony Jones" but on next line it says "Jones, the qualifier, took four of the next five frames..." so why not just say "between second seed Tony Knowles and qualifier Tony Jones" in the first place? Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---More to come later. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overview (suggested wording changes)
  • Referring back to first paragraph of 2019 Background section: I prefer the wording of first sentence there: "The World Snooker Championship is an annual cue sport tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker." then second sentence could be "Developed in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, the sport was popular in the United Kingdom before spreading to Europe and the Commonwealth."
  • Link world championship in first sentence? + link snooker in first sentence in "of the game of snooker"
  • "The world championship features" > "The World Snooker Championship features"
  • "The first world championship, in 1927" > "The first World Snooker Championship, in 1927"
  • "the event has been held at the" > "the tournament has been held at the"
  • "...in the final.[9][10] This was Davis' third championship; he previously won in 1981 and 1983." Need to clarify that we're still referring to the 1984 event here, not the 1985 one, can be sorted by combining the sentences with semi-colon and slight reword. "...in the final;[9][10] this was Davis' third world title, having previously won the championship in 1981 and 1983."
→→ Is this better? "...this was Davis' third world title, having previously won the championship in 1981 and 1983." Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The winner of the 1985 event received a prize" > "The winner of the 1985 championship received a prize"
  • "The tournament was the first to feature drug tests" (first WSC or first snooker event overall?) > "...the first snooker event to feature drug tests"?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Format (suggested wording changes)
  • "which began at Preston Guildhall on 27 March" (did it not also end there!?) > "which was held at the Preston Guildhall between 27 and 31 March"
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who went into the main draw" > "who progressed to the main draw"
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to play one of the top 16 seeds" > "to play the top 16 seeds" (the 16 qualifiers didn't all play the same top 16 seed, they all played different ones!)
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The draw for the tournament was made at the Savoy Hotel in London" [ref.5 is not relevant to this statement] + WHEN was the draw made?
Removed - No idea when it was made. BennyOnTheLoose might know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski It was 16 January 1985. Guardian article from 17 January 1985 says "when the draw was made yesterday at the Savoy Hotel.." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players"... Is it worth linking "seeded" to Seed (sports) for the layman? (Either here or in lead section where it's first mentioned.)
  • (Note b wording):
    • "defending champion was ranked outside world the top 16" > "defending champion was ranked outside the top 16 in the world rankings"
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "would have replaced the world 16th-ranked player as..." > "would have replaced the player ranked world number 16 as..."
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ Note b now has a big chunk of text missing – should read: "If the defending champion was ranked outside the top 16 in the world rankings, he would have replaced the player ranked world number 16 as an automatic qualifier." Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 13 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 16 in the semi-finals" > "The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 25 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 31 in the semi-finals" (according to Main draw tree below anyway!)
I think you've misread. 31 frames to win the semi-finals was more of a 1960s thing! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ Yes, my mistake, I saw that as meaning the maximum number of frames in the match, rather than the number needed to win, d'oh! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six former world champions participated..." Order list according to number of titles thus: Reardon(6), Spencer/Davis(3), Higgins(2), Griffiths/Thorburn(1)
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ Use correct chronology in former champions list? ...swap Steve Davis / John Spencer (JS did it first!) + swap Cliff Thorburn / Terry Griffiths (TG did it first!) Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "six titles:" inside parentheses, etc.?
I don't think this is relevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reorder first sentence of Prize fund section? > "The event had a total prize fund of £250,000, an increase of £50,000 in the total prize pool from the previous year, and the winner received £60,000, an increase of £16,000 in the winner's prize money from the previous year."
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Main draw (suggested wording changes + date inconsistencies)
  • "Shown below are the results for each round" > "The results for each round of the main stage of the championship are shown below."
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need space below Stevens/Edmonds first round match
I'm not sure what you mean. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ This is what I see: after the Stevens/Edmonds match, the date 16 & 17 April is shoved up against the bottom of the box instead of having a nice space to separate the top/bottom halves. Maybe this is a display problem. Is there any way of forcing a gap between 'bottom of top half' and 'top of bottom half' in tree? Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no date above the Charlton/Campbell first round match
added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to match tree, the second round matches were played from 17 to 21 April but Second round section above states "from 18 to 22 April"
  • According to match tree, the quarter-finals were played 22 & 23 April but Quarter-finals section above states "on 23 and 24 April"
  • According to match tree, the semi-finals were played 24 & 25 April // 24, 25 & 26 April but Semi-finals section above states on "25 and 26 April"
  • The first round dates probably need checking for consistency too, e.g. only one of them is showing up as 17 April (Thorburn/Hallett)
I agree. Maybe Benny who I pinged earlier can help with this (he gave me the offline sources for this one). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski First round was 12th to 17th April. Second round started 17th (there were both first and second round matches on 17th) and finished on 21st. Quarter-finals 22nd and 23rd. Semis 24th to 26th. Thorburn vs Hallett was on 16th and 17th. The first round dates will need checking, as suggested - e.g. Stevens v Edmonds finished on 17th.

I'll see what I can do, hopefully in the next day or so. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amended dates for two matches based on reports from The Times and the Guardian. Was able to get evidence from these two sources supporting all other Crucible match dates except Reardon v Hughes (may have started on 15th) and Charlton v Campbell. I'll check elsewhere for those later. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reardon v Hughes and Charlton v Campbell matches both started on 14th and concluded on 15th. Source: Daily Telegraph articles for 13/04/1985 and 15/04/1985. ("Knowles in Tight Finish." Daily Telegraph, 13 Apr. 1985, p. 32. The Telegraph Historical Archive, http://tinyurl.gale.com/tinyurl/BwpeU2. Accessed 17 Oct. 2019. ; Hale, Janice. "Easy for Higgins & Griffiths." Daily Telegraph, 15 Apr. 1985, p. 34. The Telegraph Historical Archive, http://tinyurl.gale.com/tinyurl/Bwptb6. Accessed 17 Oct. 2019). I made an amendment in the article to reflect this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if we could talk about only linking players' names in first round column to reduce overlinking? (This would obviously affect all WSC articles.)
WP:OL does not effect tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→→ OK you're right. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:57, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---These are my latest comments. Still looking at Tournament summary section and Refs. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summary (suggested wording changes in intro)
  • "Qualifying rounds for the event were played from 27 to 31 March" > "The championship's qualifying rounds were played between 27 and 31 March"
  • "There were five knockout rounds, with 87 players" > "There were five knockout rounds in qualifying, starting with a pool of 87 players."
  • "The second to fifth qualifying rounds had 16 matches each," > The other four qualifying rounds each consisted of 16 matches, with 32 players taking part in each round." (full stop at end)
  • "with the winners of the earlier round meeting the 16 higher-ranked players" > "The 16 winners of each round met the 16 higher-ranked players"
  • "he lost to Wayne Jones, 6–10" > "he lost to Wayne Jones in the first qualifying round, 6–10"
  • "Danny Fowler made the highest qualifying break" > "Danny Fowler compiled the highest break of the qualifying rounds"
  • "in the following round." > "in the subsequent round." OR "in the next round."
  • "in the fourth round" > "in the fourth round of qualifying"
  • "in the fifth (and final) qualifying round" > "in the fifth." (can we get away with this elipsis?)
First round (suggestions/queries)
  • "matches in two sessions" > "matches, each played over two sessions"
  • Not sure about the phrase "pegged back" !?
  • "Jones, the qualifier, took four of the next five frames" > "Jones took four of the next five frames" (do we need to say he's the qualifier, as you said before that doesn't need to be mentioned after the intro)
  • "drug tests were performed" > "drug tests were carried out"
  • "first-round matches, with Patsy Fagan defeating 12th seed Willie Thorne 10–6 and John Parrott defeating 13th seed John Spencer 10–3" > first round matches: Patsy Fagan defeated 12th seed Willie Thorne 10–6 and John Parrott defeated 13th seed John Spencer 10–3"
  • "Spencer was diagnosed with myasthenia gravis shortly after the tournament; it affected his vision" > "Shortly after the tournament, Spencer was diagnosed with myasthenia gravis which affected his vision"
  • "After being defeated twice during the season" > "Having been defeated twice during the season "
  • "A low-scoring match ... Reynolds did not see a break of over 30 points in the first three frames from either player." > "In a low-scoring match ... Reynolds, neither player scored a break of over 30 points in the first three frames."
  • "who eventually won 10–4" > "who eventually won the match 10–4"
  • "Johnson 10–8 and scored a 143 break" > "Johnson 10–8, scoring a 143 break"
  • "break at the championship to date" > "break of the championship up to that date" ?
  • "reportedly by Silvino Francisco" > "reportedly provided by Silvino Francisco"
  • World Snooker chairman Rex Williams??? (I thought he was one of the players!) Did you mean Rodney Walker by any chance!?
Williams was Chair of the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA) at the time, as well as being a player. His statement at the press conference was in his role as Chair rather than as a player. I'm not sure whether "World Snooker" was used as a name for the organisation at that time, I'd keep it as WPBSA. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and said that the statements" > "and admitted that the statements"
  • The Silvino Francisco paragraph could do with re-ordering. I'd mention the match outcome first (the important bit), then go into the controversy afterwards. E.g. "Francisco trailed 1–8 after ... and lost the match 2–10.[31] A Daily Star series of articles about drug abuse from within the championships was based on statements reportedly provided by Silvino Francisco,[36] who held a press conference with World Snooker chairman [RW?] after the match. [W?] said ... in the sport; Francisco apologised ... and admitted that the statements..."
  • Put something at start of last sentence like: "Four more seeded players won their first round matches against event qualifiers:"
  • You forgot to mention the Jimmy White / Wayne Jones match, so the above sentence would be: "Five more seeded players won their first round matches against event qualifiers:"
Second round (suggested wording changes)
  • "and eleventh" > "and 11th" (I understood your explanation in previous reply, where you said that we keep the style consistent within a sentence, but I don't think we were careful to do that in the 2019 article!)
  • "scoring century breaks in the eighth (100) and eleventh (105) frames" (sure there must be a clearer way of phrasing this?)
  • John Parrott has double 't' at end!
  • Welshman Terry Griffiths? — why are we singling him out as a Welshman? We haven't said "Welshman Ray Reardon" anywhere!
  • "the final black ball of frame 13" > "the final black ball in frame 13" ?

---My next set of comments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(intervening): I can't help noticing the great number of (mainly minor) prose/style points being raised here with, likely, many more still to come since the above review is only at the second round! The points are themselves valid and useful, but surely this work should have been done at a peer review or some other pre-FAC forum? This article does not seem to have had any prior review attention; bringing articles here for their first review seems to me to be bad policy, and the volume of points being raised is indicative that the article is underprepared. Brianboulton (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: thank you, you do have a point. I did have a quick skim through the article before Lee nominated it for FA, and I declined his offer of being co-nominator as I thought I could add more value as a reviewer. But maybe we should work on it together offline a bit more before bringing it to FA. Lee is currently on holiday (but still watching!) so we'll wait to see what he thinks about this. And you're right, I do still have a bunch of comments to make about the rest of the article, including a lot of problems with the References section. Maybe FA nom was premature? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In view of what you say, I'd strongly recommend a temporary withdrawal and resubmission when you and Lee have worked through your outstanding points. Passage through FAC should then be much speedier. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's entirely fair, it has been looked at by quite a few different eyes before nomination. The official peer review system gets next to no eyes in my opinion, and this FAC has been nominated similarly to others that I have done and passed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Lee. Please understand that I am not trying to undermine your nomination, but I am concerned to protect the FAC process. According to the nomination rubric: "Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria". You can't say you've done this, and then proceed to treat FAC as a substitute for peer review. If, as you say, the article was looked at by "quite a few" eyes before this nomination, given the number of points being raised here, their involvement was obviously superficial and pretty well worthless. Rodney Baggins, your chief interlocutor here, has said he is willing to deal with his substantial number of remaining points away from this process, and that seems a sensible way forward. That is what I am recommending; I am concerned about creating bad precedents for future nominations, and what you say you've got away with in the past is not relevant. In the end, though, it's up to the coordinators as to how far they wish to indulge you, and I'm happy to go along with whatever they decide.  Brianboulton (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
if anything, its bad timing on my part. If coordinators feel this is too much commentary for an FAC, I will be happy to pull it. Usually I'd go through the GAN process before nominating, but I was hoping to claim the points for the wikicup. I appreciate your concern for the process though. If you have any additional comments yourself for the article, feel free to let me know. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I'm wincing as I read this because we've had longstanding issues with unprepared nominations at FAC in pursuit of Wikicup points. I think the point, though, is that FAC seems to have been used as a substitute for a peer review/preparation process in this instance. I'm going to archive this nomination and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2019 (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/archive1&oldid=922323180"