Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of snooker Triple Crown finals/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of snooker Triple Crown finals

Featured list candidates/List of snooker Triple Crown finals/archive1

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a list of all of the Triple Crown (snooker) event finals. Recently created, would love to get it up to FL. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead seems incredibly short at just 1024KB (way too short for a DYK). Is there really no more to say?
- Hmm, I suppose the only things we could really add would be broadcasters and such, but that's more about the events than a list of winners. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Season column formatted differently for the Masters than the other two?
- Fixed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2 does not support the claim that the WSC is considered part of the Triple Crown but only since 1969, in fact as far as I can see it doesn't support anything in that sentence
- I've reworded to only have the facts. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Winner and runner-up columns should sort on surname, not forename
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Date formatting in the refs is not consistent (also ref 1 has no dates at all)
- Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Was there anything else ChrisTheDude. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

I'm not sure it's even covered in the main Triple Crown article, but I think there should be a mention that the idea of a snooker "triple crown" was applied retrosepctively. I have a feeling the phrase wasn't even mentioned in snooker until something like the late 1990s.
- I only found one suitable ref that kind of talks around it. Hopefully that's suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not seeing the support for this in The Guardian source. (Capitalise The, if retained). If it's not in sources then better to omit it here. I'll see if I can dig anything up, but I don't recall any sources on this TBH. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I haven't found anything earlier than the 1999 quote mentioned at Talk:Triple_Crown_(snooker)/GA1. Clive Everton used the term in an Independent article a few weeks later. In an Irish Independent article published on 5 May 2003, Phil Yates refers to "the game's unofficial triple crown". I think it really only became a thing when the Triple Crown Series icon came out in 2020, but it is a thing, so best to avoid the retro discussion (that I started; sorry!) in this list article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 1, 2 - as per ChrisTheDude's comments.
- I've done a reword Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 - CueSport book page 10 does not mention Masters being a triple crown event, and doesn't mention the UK Championship at all.
- Yeah, this now just says that they were founded in these years, not that the source states they are part of the triple crown, which is sourced elsewhere. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Ronnie O'Sullivan has contested a record 29 finals, winning 21." Isn't sourced. Are readers expected to count entries in the tables? (Presumably that's how "Players to appear in multiple finals" is derived, as that doesn't have any sources either.)
- That's a WP:COUNT things. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CALC? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - that's the one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 4, from 2013, says Robertson is the "eighth player" to win the triple crown, does not support "Eleven players have won each of the events at least once"
- There's a new source that specifically names them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how source 5 supports "Ray Reardon, who won the world championship on six occasions and the Masters once was unable to reach a UK Championship final.[5]"
- Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refs on the UK Championship finals table are untidy- some cited at header, others against years.
Refs inconsistent between, e.g. World Snooker Tour, worldsnooker.com. World Snooker. (I think some will be published by WPBSA as they date back before WS/WST.)
The refs at the end of "List of Masters finals[28]" aren't very helpful, just refer to other refs., and I don't think they are the right ones anyway. (e.g. the Turner link is to his World Championship page)
- That's a WP:BUNDLING thing. I've removed the stray Masters ref.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The examples in WP:BUNDLING show the sources when hovered over, not just other reference numbers. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have expanded these out, but I don't particularly think this looks better. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1972 World Championship final score was probably 37–31 (see Talk:1972_World_Snooker_Championship)
- Oh yes, done. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
List of World Snooker Championship winners - most recent source was accessed in 2019, but the list goes up to 2022. Again, I don't think just pointing to other refs is very helpful here.
- Yeah, that's pretty normal, I can update the access-date on the snooker.org ref if you want. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that woudl be better. "Archived from the original on 28 July 2019. Retrieved 24 February 2011." doesn't look right for something going up to 2022. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look after your responses. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"called the "modern era" of snooker" - needs a bit of rephrasing. The era is since 1969.
- Reworded Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"non-ranking Masters" - as this is the only reference to "ranking" in the intro, either wikilink it or explain.
- Removed, not really relevant Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - I made a couple of very minor amends. I'm satisfied that this article meets the featured list criteria. The into is short, but I believe it adequately meets criterion 2. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

With no evidence found to the contrary, I'll assume good faith that File:Ronnie O’Sullivan at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-06 10.jpg is in fact the uploader's own work, so image review passes.
You shouldn't use italics for BBC Sport, Eurosport, Eurosport UK, Sky Sports, Snooker.org, "cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk", or "worldsnooker.com"
- But these aren't publishers, so they should be listed under |work on cite web, which is what I have. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"snookerscene.co.uk" is redundant for the refs already naming Snooker Scene
- I've done some fixes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Date formats should be consistent within references, which in this case should be DMY per MOS:DATE
,I've run a script for this Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the tables of winners, it looks like you tried to cite whole boxes with one general ref (or bundle) at the top, so is there a particular reason some individual listings have their own citations while others don't?
- I've removed the errant refs. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Cheers SNUGGUMS, I've made the changes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can use "agency" field to remove the erroneous italics that "work" and "website" parameters auto-generate for some reason. Also, there's a formatting error with ref#19, and I forgot to mention that The Guardian should start with a capital T. Not so sure about using italics for "World Snooker Tour". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - But these aren't agencies. That would be something like the Associated Press. If the cite web template is wrong for italicizing website/work information, that would be an issue with that template, not this article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - In that case, I'll support the nomination, just be sure to link BBC Sport in ref#1 as well as Snooker Scene within ref#6. Hopefully the template can be adjusted so it doesn't add those italics by default (at least for website). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query - one thing I only just noticed (maybe it wasn't like that before) - why are there two separate groups of categories at the bottom of the article, one inside the usual box and the other oddly floating above it......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, fixed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

It really feels like the lead is inadequate for what we're looking to be "among the best content on Wikipedia". Perhaps some consideration needs to be given to expanding to include entry criteria for each of the Triple Crown events, perhaps what the winners of each event got etc.
- I've added a bit. Hopefully that's suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One image in the lead and then nothing? The rest of the list looks pretty bleak with just tables and nothing to enhance the reader's experience.
- I can add a couple images. I'm not the biggest fan of the gallery down the right, but can put one in if necessary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think, IIRC, templates like {{dagger}} can take an "alt" parameter to explain them for accessibility.
- Sure. Not really sure what this would say though. {{dagger|alt=footnote}} is the example given, but I don't think that's all that helpful. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 2 lacks a date, either publication or access.
- Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is 888 sport?
- Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No archive for ""Hall of Fame". Snooker.org. Retrieved 3 June 2022."?
- Ran the archive script Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes "global-snooker.com" an RS? (note it seems to be hyphenated as well).
- I tend to think it's a very good resource, and I've done a deep dive on it before, but can't find my notes. It doesn't cover anything that isn't already covered, so I can remove it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is an article under the "Snooker terminology" category.
- Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Sportsfan77777

You did a good job with the list on the Triple Crown (snooker) page, but from that list, I think it's clear that this one isn't up to that standard. Specifically, some differences where I prefer what was done on the Triple Crown page are:

I would think the point of this article is to see which players came close to winning the Triple Crown or to track how many finals each player has reached over time. However, it doesn't seem like it can be used for either of those purposes because it's just three separate lists (that also basically just repeat lists on other pages at a lower quality). I would recommend figuring out how to make it a single chronological list like you did with the list on the Triple Crown (snooker) page.
- I think that with more information on the table, that would just get confusing. I'm much happier with info on the tournament winners. I think the assumptions here are a bit misplaced, as if you were following a single player (say Steve Davis), his Triple Crown finals are listed on his own page in such a way. this is just a full list of all such finals. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason for not using the flags?
- Flag cruft pretty much. These are individual events, not national. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend having the counts of the finals: e.g. (1/1), (11/15), etc. the same way you have a count for the wins on the other page.
I would recommend using color (and symbols) to indicate which players (a) made two finals, (b) made three finals, and (c) won the Triple Crown.

I see others have already pointed out issues with the lead being too short. Some things that are missing are:

The article should distinguish that it's referring to the finals of the Triple Crown events, not the finals in which a Triple Crown was won. (As of now, it doesn't specify that the events that constitute the Triple Crown achievement are referred to as Triple Crown events.)
- I've added a sentence. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead could mention more about how many players have made all three finals in the same year, how many of them won all three, and highlight who if anyone won the first two events in a year but messed up their chance in the final of the third one.

It seems like most of the article could be affected, so oppose at the moment, but I have confidence you can figure it out. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I know that you've been quite busy recently, but do you plan on continuing to work on this nomination? --Pres N 02:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. I hadn't forgotten at all, just had zero time. Will check this through ASAP! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sportsfan77777, do you think your opposition has been sufficiently addressed in the above replies?--N Ø 02:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NØ

I would write "Eleven" as a numeral (11) to keep in line with the "29" and "21" in the preceding sentence.
- Issue is, we don't ever start a sentence with a number, which is the problem here. Ive reworded to make this possible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
Where is the source for the Players to appear in multiple finals table?
- I'd argue MOS:CALC seeings we've sourced all of the individual finals MaranoFan. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would be happy to support after these are addressed, Lee Vilenski. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate a review on my current FAC. Best wishes.--N Ø 16:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to support. I suppose its the coords' responsibility to decide what do with the oppose that never came back.--N Ø 11:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodney Baggins

I made a few improvements to this list article the other day, hope you don't mind. I would support this as a featured list apart from just one thing. I don't see how ref.6 verifies the statement: "The Triple Crown events are generally the most prestigious on the calendar, with the three winners in the 2021–22 snooker season earning more prize money than from any of the other events." Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, maybe not the "prestigious" part. if you click on the individual events, it'll show the prize money given. This was the only way to show the prize money in contrast to the other events. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

"is the achievement of winning three specific events:" I don't think "specific" is necessary since you are going to subsequently list the events so I think this can be removed.
- I added the word "specific" here because otherwise it might appear, on first reading, that players just need to win any three events, rather than those three specific ones. I know the three are listed after the colon, but the addition of specific serves to make the statement crystal clear. Or could change it to "...winning these three events:" or "winning the following three events:"? Lee, it's your call! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I like "winning the following three events:" but "winning these three events" would work, too, and would make the phrasing more clear in my opinion. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the World Snooker Championship reverted to being played as a knockout tournament in 1969," -> "the World Snooker Championship reverted to a knockout tournament in 1969," I don't think the removed content is necessary
"with all subsequent competition" Delete all as redundant
- Disagree. "with all subsequent competition" shows that the modern era is all snooker tournaments that came after the 1969 world championship. Removing those words would leave: "the World Snooker Championship reverted to a knockout tournament in 1969, considered as the "modern era" of snooker" – meaning that 1969 alone was considered the modern era, rather than the start of the modern era. Could change it to "the World Snooker Championship reverted to a knockout tournament in 1969, considered as the start of the "modern era" of snooker"? Lee, it's your call! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll leave this to Lee Vilenski's discretion. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"when it became open to all professional overseas players as well as those from the UK." -> "when it became open to all professional players." I don't think overseas and UK need to be outlined, as I think it creates a "for indoor and outdoor use only" situation where there are no other options (if there is a category of professional player that falls outside of overseas and British categories, then keep this in)

Source review: Version reviewed

ISBNs should either have dashes or not have dashes
Ref 2: Why is no author listed?
- Added Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3: What makes this a high-quality source?
- Published book from Eric Hayton, who used to write the European Football magazines. Seems like the highest quality to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4: What makes this a high-quality source?
- Chris Turner is the guy who used to do the statistics for the BBC and Eurosport, and is generally deemed the second most renowned snooker historian after Clive Everton before his death. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 6: What makes this a high-quality source?
- It's an award winning statistical site, awarded by Britannia and the BBC. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 6/9: Should Snooker.org be capitalised?
- I actually have no idea. I was under the impression website parameters, where the title is just the website name it was lowercase. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I checked MOS:TITLECAPS and websites are not explicitly mentioned. It does mention that titles of works should be capitalised, but then we would need to discuss if a website name like "snooker.org" is considered the "title of a work". My interpretation is that capitalising websites in a "snooker.org" or "healthcare.gov" format in references is the article writer's choice, as long as it is consistent. Right now, "snooker.org" is not capitalised in ref 6, but is capitalised in refs 9 bullet 3, 10 bullet 3, and 11 bullet 3. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a response above. Some of the bullet points above don't have a comment underneath them. Were they addressed/resolved? Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing; while the source review was not formally closed I'm going to count it, and while there is an outstanding oppose it seems to be at odds with the opinions of the other reviewers for the bits that were not done. As such, promoting. --Pres N 13:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.