Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2022 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) 25 January 2023 [1].

2022 World Snooker Championship

edit
Nominator(s): User:HurricaneHiggins, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

This article is about the 2022 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Let me know your thoughts. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

edit

It's been a week after nomination, and this is still dormant, so I'll throw my hat in:

  • No complaints in lead.
  • Fergal O'Brien, Martin O'Donnell, Sunny Akani, and Andrew Higginson Maybe alphabetize
  • What's a 137 break?
MOS:NOFORCELINK: Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I get that - but the idea of explaining what a break is, would be similar to explaining what a yellow card is in football, or what a cannon is in warfare. Whilst we should expect articles to explain highly jargon terms (or avoid altogether) we shouldn't be adding in explainations for the most common of terms for the subject matter. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Er, this is an encyclopedia. The reason we're here is to explain unfamiliar concepts. It's our job to explain the common terms of the subject matter! Besides which, the MoS doesn't give an exemption for common terms. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could make that exact argument about literally any article. I don't think you could point to any FA where this isn't the case. Do you have a wording that would make sense here? If we don't have "an exemption" for common terms, then we would have to explain every single thing that isn't completely obvious in prose. That would not be improving the encyclopedia, it would make all things so much harder to read. I would oppose an FA that went out of its way to explain the minutia of every term as being not well written. To this end, I've started a topic at the MOS talk page as I've heard this argument a few times and I've never seen it applied outside of sports articles. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Could you provide a link? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I was still composing it. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth and final round of qualifying, billed as "Judgement Day", was As they are multiple rounds, i.e. plural, should it be "were"?
  • a 17 percent increase over the previous year. Overall, the event attracted a 30 percent greater share of the BBC's viewing audience than the previous year. What's the difference?
    • This says the final session (the last few hours of the 17 days) was 17 per cent larger, whilst the event as a whole had 30 per cent higher audience (on the BBC at least).
  • Should that be "Snooker.org" rather than "snooker.org"?

The subject isn't exactly my forte, but this article is really immaculate work. Very nice job. ~ HAL333 01:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 18:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

edit

Image review

- the only image I've found is a print of the official match program, which I've used before. See cuetracker.net/tournaments/world-championship/2022/4888. (link is blacklisted for citations, should be fine for showing where the image came from). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nom has been open long enough, by all means pursue and double-check with Nikki if necessary afterwards. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

edit
  • Snooker Scene (which reported extensively on the tournament in the June 2022 issue) seems like an omission from the sources. There probably isn't too much more to add about the background and matches, but perhaps something like Clive Everton's view on O'Sullivan's victory could be added? Or maybe there are more details from the magazine's article "O'Sullivan tops all lists" that provide further context?
    • Yeah, I no longer have the Snooker Scene for that month, I'm looking into getting a copy but since Everton left I've not been all that interested in renewing my subscription. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll add some quotes here, which you can use or not. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Ronnie O'Sullivan's seventh world title, equalling Stephen Hendry's television era record, emphasises his standing as snooker's answer to Tiger Woods in golf or Roger Federer in tennis. He is 'the greatest' in snooker’s history just as Muhammad Ali remains 'the greatest' in boxing's 6 years after his death." (Everton, Clive, "Ronnie O'Sullivan: The Greatest", Snooker Scene, June 2020, p.29) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Ronnie O'Sullivan is now top of all the lists that matter, underlining his status as the greatest player of all time." 39 titles, now 3 ahead of Hendry on 36; 61 ranking finals, ahead of Hendry on 57; 62 century breaks in the season, one ahead of Robertson; 1,169 career centuries, ahead of J. Higgins on 897; £822,000 prize money in the season, ahead of Robertson on £755,600 ("O'Sullivan tops all lists", Snooker Scene, June 2020, p.3) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a piece on the first part, which is good commentary review. The second part is a bit too stats for prose imo. I'd rather that was in the snooker season article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran Ohconfucius/dashes.js and incorporated the suggested changes - please revert if you disagreee.
  • I amended the curly quote after "victories" in the Wilson quote.
  • There are a couple of duplicate links (which I think you can pick up using the script - let me know if not)
  • I don't think you need both snookerscene.co.uk and Snooker Scene in the same reference.
  • There are some references specifying "WST" or "World Snooker Tour", while others for the same site have "World Snooker"
  • Shouldn't the title "Race to the Crucible WPBSA Snooker" just be Race to the Crucible?
  • Adding the ISSN for The Times is probably unnecessary - there's no ISSN for The Guardian specified, for example.
  • Why no "pictured in.." for the Bond and Marteel images, which are older than the Marco Fu one?
  • "Welsh amateur", "Veteran Welsh player" "his Welsh compatriot" - the "Welsh" seems irrelevant. ("compatriot" appears six times, four in connection with Welsh players.) I'm not sure that the "six Welsh players reached the Crucible, the most since 1990" and the previous sentence are necessary.
  • Seems to be a stray "Ivan" on the "Top Ten Matches Of 2022" ref.

Background

Qualifying

Main stage

Source review

edit

Before getting started, I went back to a previous source review I did of one of your snooker articles to see what sources we'd discussed, to avoid asking again about sources you've already demonstrated are reliable. A couple of sources used here were removed from the earlier FAC when I questioned them because they were easy to replace, rather than because you felt they were not reliable:

  • globalsnookercentre.co.uk
  • snookerhq.com

Can you take a look at these and either remove them or make a case for keeping them this time? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • You use domain names in some cases rather than website names; livesnooker.com should be Live Snooker, for example. Others are worldsnooker.com, worldsnookerdata.com sportinglife.com, snooker.org.
  • What's the logic behind your use of the publisher and website/work parameters for web citations? It seems you're using publisher for the World Snooker Tour and almost nothing else. The publisher is not italicized but the website/work parameter is italicized, so it's a question of consistency in presentation. I can see that for something like Sporting Life you might treat that as the website name, as that's what readers will recognize, whereas for WST the publisher is the recognizable name. Is that the reasoning? If so, FN 14 is inconsistent, and I'm not sure why you're using publisher for Snooker Scene and SBC News, but I think everything else works.
  • Any reason why you give a publisher location for FN 5, but not for any other citations?
  • FN 46 has the title in italics.

Will look at reliability and links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Links all work, though the internet archive is giving me multi-minute response times at the moment so I wasn't able to test the archive links, and the sources are all reliable, so just the points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I've looked at the above. Some of this citation style stuff confuses me, so I hope I understood it Mike Christie Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 13 January 2023 (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/2022_World_Snooker_Championship/archive1&oldid=1135649763"