Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2016 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2022 [1].

2016 World Snooker Championship

edit
Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2016 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Mark Selby won the event defeating Ding Junhui in the final. Let me know your thoughts.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review. I will do a little copy editing as I go. Let me know if you object to anything.

"The event was the tenth and last ranking event of the 2015–2016 season." → 'The event was the tenth and last event of the 2015–2016 season that carried snooker world ranking points' doesn't seem difficult to me.
Apologies GTM, I've been a bit busy with something else. Sure, I've made this change. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not referring to the rather smart graphics. You write about qualifying in some detail in "Tournament summary#Seeding and qualifying rounds" and then repeat some of it and add information in "Qualifying". This level of detail would be better consolidated in one place, and just a brief summary left to introduce "Qualifying", as you do with "Main draw".
I get your concern. However, I do feel like it would bloat up the format section to include the names of invited players, for instance. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. I might be inclined to argue further over this, but checking other, similar, promoted articles this approach has clearly been acceptable to other reviewers. Which I find a little odd, but so be it. Otherwise well up to your usual standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

edit
I was probably being a little nit-picky but that's all. Great work here as usual.--NØ 18:50, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

edit

Overview

Tournament

Main draw

  • I don't like versions of the final table that duplicate the scores under each player. I think the version at 1985 World Snooker Championship looks better, and, with the annotations, is more accessible. This probably can't be a fatal objection though.

Qualifying

  • The EBSA Order of Merit - spell out what the EBSA is at first mention. The links are probably adequate for WLBSA/IBSF and EBSA in the list of qualifying players.
  • Players invited by the Order of Merit were limited to one player per country" - how about "Order of Merit invitations were limited to one player per country."?

Hi Lee Vilenski. Comments above. I might have some more later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot the ping I have made the above two changes too BennyOnTheLoose. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Despite two minor concerns. I still think "The match ended just minutes after Selby's home city of Leicester celebrated Leicester City F.C.'s first ever Premier League title win" could do with something added to show it's relevance here, and the final table should be improved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • Why is BBC Sport italicized and Yahoo! Sports not?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publication locations
  • What makes SnookerHQ a high-quality reliable source? Chris Turner? Bleacher Report? Snooker.org?
Personally, I've always found SnookerHQ to be a very well written item that should be considered reliable, but there was just one entry, so I've removed it..
Chris Turner was the statistician and historian who worked for Eurosport and the BBC. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bleacher Report has been removed Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snooker.org is an award winning statistics site. Only uses direct information from match scores and dates in the article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What award(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to the about us page, they were on Snooker Scene (and won website of the year in 2011), BilliardsDigest (under a different name), (and a citation in the Independent). It also suggests they won a Britannia Internet Use Guide, and were linked by the BBC Education Web Guide... But I know nothing about these sites. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 12 and 13 are to the same source but are formatted differently - check throughout

Some cleanup needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, not ignoring these - just running a bit low on time the last couple days. Get to them soon. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the source changes. There's a couple comments on the sources brought up. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry NikkiMaria - I had made these changes a while ago, but never pinged through.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Nikkimaria as the attempt above looks to have failed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, and Nikkimaria: - What exactly is the status on this source review? I'm having trouble telling. Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing issues with missing data - eg FN45 has an agency at the source but not in the citation. I'm also a bit confused by the formatting logic still - why for example does FN9 have both work and publisher when similar sources have one (but not always the same one)? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologiesfor the late reply here - my time is limited at the moment. I'm happy to work through the formatting issues. I'll have another look through when I have a little more time. Thanks for bearing with me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have made the above changes :). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, has this resolved the issues? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski, are you able to articulate in what circumstances you use work vs publisher vs both for web sources? I'm still not sure of the logic. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I've removed publisher parameters and replaced with work/website parameters where appropriate. Publishers would be for something that was originally published and then stored online, such as a newspaper or book. Hopefully this resolves your issue. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

edit

Prose review. I've read many snooker articles at FAC, and watched a match or two.

  • "Bingham lost 9–10 against Ali Carter in the first round falling to the Crucible curse and becoming the 17th first-time champion unable to defend his title at the venue." Suggest a comma after "round"
  • "to become the first Asian player ever to reach a World Championship final." Delete ever as redundant.
  • "The 32 players for the event are selected through a mix of the world snooker rankings, and pre-tournament qualification rounds." Suggest removing the comma after and; since this is a list of two items, a serial comma is usually not used.
  • "Professional payers below 17th place in rankings," Is this supposed to be players?
  • "The afternoon session of the final was watched by audiences of 45 million in China, the country's largest audience for a sporting event that year." I'm not thrilled with "audiences" used twice in this sentence. Maybe, "The afternoon session of the final was watched 45 million people in China, the country's largest audience for a sporting event that year."
  • "including 210 million on CCTV-5." Wikilink to CCTV-5?

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made all of the above changes Z1720, thanks for your comments. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit
Sure. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:23, 9 August 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/2016_World_Snooker_Championship/archive1&oldid=1104894319"