Talk:2022 UK Championship

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

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 RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Lee Vilenski (talk) and HurricaneHiggins (talk). Nominated by Lee Vilenski (talk) at 12:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Lee Vilenski, I think this hook focuses unduly on a negative aspect of a living person – can another hook be found? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably, but I don't really see how this is particularly problematic. It's clearly well cited and quite hooky. We don't just skimp over things simply because they are negative. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lee Vilenski: I'd point you to WP:DYK#gen4a: Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided (emphasis in original). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The QPQ requirement for this nomination is now five days overdue. As per RfC on excessively late supply of QPQ credits, it should be been completed within one week of nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like with the finale of the Cup, the UK Championship and the football, I forgot about this. I have supplied a QPQ now Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination needs a full review. Flibirigit (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review underway (might as well, since I watched the whole tournament!!). In view of the possible BLP concerns raised above about the Gary Wilson hook, Lee Vilenski could I ask you to suggest a few more hooks as alternatives please, which I will then assess? Possibilities that occur to me would be Jimmy qualifying at 60, Ronnie's whitewash and the big comeback in the final. There are probably others. Cheers. Review will take place over a period of time this weekend due to article length. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the issue I have is that those things aren't all the important to a regular reader. There's been enough chat at WT:DYK about making sure that the hooks that we are providing are interesting to the general reader. Maybe if the BLP stuff is to vague, we could simply omit the players name in the hook, and just say: "that at the 2022 UK Championship a player threw his cue stick to the floor in anger?" or similar. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's fair enough. I'm not entirely convinced it violates BLP even by naming Wilson – after all, it was only an angry outburst. Rest of the review will follow shortly. If concerns are raised about the hook later in the process, I am happy to review any alternatives that are provided. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 14:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was pretty much what I thought. BLP doesn't mean not talking about negative aspects should be ignored, and realistically, this isn't a negative aspect of a person, it's a thing that has happened (and is well sourced). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review follows:

  • While the structure of the article existed earlier, the expansion started with this diff on 9th November, so the article was nominated in time the following day.
  • Prose expansion was substantial (somewhere around 30x).
  • Currently rated C-class. No doubt a GA submission will follow: the article substantially exceeds C-class now!
  • No previous appearance at DYK or "In the News".
  • Sources: what I would expect from a snooker article. Various newspapers, BBC News, World Snooker's website, Eurosport and Snooker Scene magazine are used: all are reliable and high-quality for snooker reporting. There is one use of a Daily Mirror story for a very minor fact, which is no problem (The Mirror appears at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as "no consensus"; I regard it as reliable for sports reporting).
  • Spot checks on numerous references show:
    • No close paraphrasing or copyvio;
    • All facts are fully supported by the relevant reference.
    • No content is uncited.
  • The hook fact is cited and is suitably interesting. Hook length is OK. To pre-empt any queries: the "outburst" happened during the qualifying stages, rather than the tournament proper, but we don't need to say "...during qualifying for the 2022 UK Championship" or whatever because both qualifying and the tournament proper are part of the same event.
  • QPQ review has been undertaken; it is waiting for a QPQ of its own before the nominator can mark it verified.
Verified. A good read. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_UK_Championship&oldid=1196923057"