Talk:1977 World Snooker Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Qualification matches[edit]

http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/PastTournaments.aspx?p=1&t=368 differs somewhat from the scores given here: it has John Dunning (not John Virgo) beating Roy Andrewartha 11-1, has David Taylor 11-0 David Greaves but omits John Pulman 11–0 David Taylor (presumably David Taylor is an error here anyway, since he qualified). Nigej 16:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The link you have given shows the results of the 2010 World Championship. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Scroll down to the 1977 Championship for the above results. Nigej 17:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I did find them, but if I can't source them, then I can't add them. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 17:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This must indeed be an error,as both John Pulman and David Taylor went on to play in the competition proper. The records I have simply state "John Pulman wo" but they don't say who the player was whose no-show afforded him a bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.8.15 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Armbrust The Homunculus 18:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that John Spencer "exploded two myths" by winning the 1977 World Snooker Championship with a two-piece cue that he had only been using for a couple of months? Source: Clive Everton, The Embassy Book of World Snooker (Bloomsbury, 1993), page 50. I'm happy to provide the relevant extract from the source to a reviewer via email.
    • Comment: I'm open to any suggestions for ALTs or for improvements.

5x expanded by BennyOnTheLoose (talk). Self-nominated at 14:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - Not done
Overall: I assume good faith on the references I can't access. A QPQ is needed. SL93 (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:1977 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 11:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links[edit]

Prose[edit]

Lede[edit]

  • Usually when we do these ledes, we mention how many events there were in the season. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's easier to say there were x ranking events for seasons where there is a clear professional circuit; it's less easy when there was only one ranking event. I know there is a list at 1976–77 snooker season but I'm not sure this is suitable as a source for numbering - e.g. Pot Black is omitted from almost all serious record books (other than listing winners); there were Pontins Open and Warners Opens, at least four or five other pro-am events, and the Ashton Court professional (invitational) event. I don't think we have clear criteria, or a guiding source, for which of these to include, so it may be better to stick with saying that it "was the only ranking event of the 1976–77 snooker season" which I've added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event was sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy and for the first time was held at the Crucible, which has remained as the venue for the Championship since then. - these should be two sentences, or re-ordered, or it sounds like Embassy still sponsor the event. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • reword "main event". In things like boxing, this means the final match, wheras we mean it be the main tournament. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

  • Reardon isn't linked in body, but should be mentioned in the section above as the past point. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That table is pretty massive. Can we not just put the 50+ breaks in brackets rather than another row? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the prose, you put Virgo down as winning a preliminary qualifying round, but in qualifying, it's round one and two.Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.