Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Snooker world rankings 1978/1979/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, 11 December 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1978/1979

Featured list candidates/Snooker world rankings 1978/1979/archive1

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it includes all of the relevant information, with suitable sources. The layout closely follows that for Snooker world rankings 1977/1978 which was successfully nominated as a featured list. Thanks for your consideration. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think my only comment is one which I raised at a previous FLC but I can't remember what the outcome was. How come five players with 0 total points made it into the rankings? There must be more players who did not reach the last 16 of any of the previous three World Championships than just those five, so why were those five players officially ranked and the others not.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ChrisTheDude. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Snooker world rankings 1977/1978/archive1. I can still offer no explanation of how some players with 0 points were included. (I did think they should be omitted based on the Snooker Scene article where the rankings were published in 1978, but those players are listed in Chris Turner's Snooker Archive and in Kobylecky's The Complete International Directory of Snooker Players – 1927 to 2018). I've added "It is unclear why five players with 0 points were included in the rankings." to the text, which is equivalent to what happened for the 1977/1978 list article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 ||data-sort-value="Reardon, Ray"... becomes !scope=row | 1 (linebreak)|data-sort-value="Reardon, Ray".... If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --Pres N 00:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, PresN. On the previous year's table I had used the player's name as the "primary cell", but I think that their ranking position should probably be the primary cell in the context of a ranking list. What do you think? Hopefully the changes I've made are OK. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with having the rank be the primary cell here. --Pres N 12:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

Having a look through now. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the prose is fine - but the world rankings weren't just for the world championships - correct? They were also used for invitational events, right? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure. The 1979 Masters (snooker), for example, had ten invited players but included the players ranked 11, 13, and 14; the 1979 Pontins Professional (eight players) included those ranked 9, 14, 23, and some unranked player called Steve Davis. It seems unlikely that UK-based players would turn down the chance to be included in either of these. If you have any examples, let me know. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is just one image - it has no description. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the boxes on the right? It looks like three infoboxes on top of each other. The info is in the table. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I realised that they contain some uncited information, too. I can't think of any logic for including "top three", so removed them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear why five players with 0 points were included in the rankings. - I feel like it's likely active players who had competed in at least one of the three previous championships but lost in the opening round. I feel it would be better served as a note. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't work out where the lower rankings ever came from. As noted by a reviewer for the previous season's list, "it just looks really odd to see someone like M.Owen listed there whereas someone like David Greaves, who also seems to have competed in two WSCs during the relevant period without achieving any ranking points, is not included". As no players with no points were included in the Snooker Scene list, I have no idea where else the lower places could derive from - possibly some OR by someone (Chris Turner? Cuetracker?) down along the line which has now made its way into reliable sources? Converted to a note. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Lee Vilenski. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are stalling out a bit, so since this is a shorter list I've given this a look directly instead of waiting for other reviews first. I didn't find anything to complain about in either the list or the sources, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. --Pres N 18:56, 10 December 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.