Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Snooker/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 31 August 2021 [1].

Snooker[edit]

Nominator(s): User:Rodney Baggins, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the sport of snooker. After a series of other FAs on snooker tournaments, myself and Rodney have tackled the main game. The article goes into depths about the history, how it has become a worldwide game, the rules, tournaments and the stature of the sport. I hope you enjoy reading, and let me know any issues you might find. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Joe Davis.jpg and File:Neville Francis Fitzgerald Chamberlain.png lack information on the original publication date and/or author. Neither of them is old enough to just assume they are in the public domain. There is also image sandwiching in Important players section. (t · c) buidhe 19:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney has fixed the SANDWICH problem, and I am working on replacing the specific images. There is one from the national gallery that I think is ok. For now, I've commented them out of the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of the early players (Joe Davis, Fred Davis, John Pulman, John Spencer, Ray Reardon) have fair-use images on Commons which is a real shame. The images used in their individual wiki articles have only been authorised for use in that one location. Same applies to Neville Chamberlain (although I'm not convinced that his image is legitimately used in his article...) – Is there any way we could approach any of the image originators to request permission to put one of these in the main Snooker article (obo Wiki organisation)? In the meantime, I've added a picture of Steve Davis into Important players section, as it looked a bit odd showing JUST Ronnie O'Sullivan. I'm also not keen on seeing History section as just a sea of text with not a single image. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not sure how much a photograph of a famous player adds to the article. Snooker isn't one of those sports (unlike say marathon running) players' physique or appearance is closely related to their performance. I think it might be better to look for free images of people playing the sport in the past. You could try looking in old snooker publications published before 1926 to find public domain images. (t · c) buidhe 13:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose Bill Werbeniuk would be a good example of why the antithesis of that is true, although generally you do need to be pretty fit to play snooker. We do have some poor quality images, such as one for Joe Davis, as Australian copyright is a bit different, and I'm not sure if something like [2] hits the public domain barrier or not. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's an image of Chamberlain in the Illustrated London News for 4 May 1901 available via the British Newspaper Archive. Would a clipping of that be acceptable? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would still have to be licensed for use via Commons. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

History

  • "several variations of the game were devised during this time" - is snooker really a variation of billiards, as stated by Boru, or of the other games mentioned?
    • I don't think we've commented on snooker at this time, just that there was lots of billiard games that were popular. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The text is "In the 1870s, billiards was popular among British Army officers stationed in Jubbulpore, India, and several variations of the game were devised during this time. One version, which originated at the Officers' Mess of the 11th Devonshire Regiment in 1875, combined the rules of two pool games: pyramid pool, played with fifteen red-coloured balls positioned in a triangle; and black pool, which involved the potting of designated balls" - with the "One version", doesn't this suggest that it's a variation of billiards? Boru says this, so it's acceptable, but others (e.g. Everton's History, Ch.5) make the link between the pool games and snooker. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if it's worth including, but pyramid pool and black pool could have multiple players.
    • Feels like a tangent to me. Just need to clarify what bits they take from those games. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably is tangential for this article, but the more players, the higher the stakes and Everton notes the early version of snooker as a game with "variety (and a variety of monetary forefits)" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1882 when its first set of rules was finalised by British Army officer Sir Neville Chamberlain" - isn't there a bit of doubt about this? I'd suggest slightly weakening the statement. (Shamos refers to snooker's origin in India as a "popular legend".)
    • My copy of Shamos' book just says that he thinks it's a myth that he came up with the game, not that he published the first set of rules. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that there were originally four pool balls, and other rules changed over time.
    • My biggest issue with this, is Shamos' book just says that they used four and then six pool balls, but not whether that was six balls, and also the six colours and white, or if it was just those balls. I'm not sure how you could play the game with four balls, and the item doesn't go into depths on this, but something like The Art Of Practical Billiards: For Amateurs (1889) might do - but I don't have a copy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, I found an online copy: [3]. The article mentions 15 red balls, and then six pool balls (not four, like the reference used in Shamos' book). The only difference is that the blue and pink were swapped. For 1889, this is incredibly similar to the rules we currently use. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice find. Interesting that the possibility of a 147 break is mentioned. Everton's History says "it was Chamberlain's inspiration gradually to add other coloured balls so that snooker came to be played with 15 reds, yellow green, pink and black. Blue and brown were added some years later." (p.48) We don't want too much of a diversion into the changes of rules here but I still think it's probably worth noting that the rules developed over time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first official snooker tournament was the 1908 American Tournament, held between 1907 and 1908 in London and won by Charles Dawson when the sport was used as an extra feature to billiard matches." - "first", "official"? - what's the basis for this from the source? "won by Charles Dawson" - not verified by source.
    • I've gone ahead and removed this. Many sources talk about the first English Amatuer competition being the first official tournament, but this one predates it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a shame to see it go, but a source is needed. I even checked the 1907/08 copies of The World of Billiards but didn't find any reference to it being the first. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Billiards Association and the Billiards Control Board merged" - not verified by source.
  • Billiards Control Board - wasn’t it the Billiards Control Club?
  • Consider adding the years the two organisations that amalgamated to form the were founded.
  • organised by Joe Davis" - worth expanding slightly, I think
    • With what? Remember, we are covering an overview of the subject - not every detail will be suitable for the main article. I think the fact he ran the event covers it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had a look at the sources cited and neither mentions Davis (or any other entity) organising it. I believe it was the BA&CC rather than Davis that organised it, but let's see what sources say. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "moved the game from a recreational pastime to a professional sporting activity" . Not sure about this phrasing. It remained a recreational pastime too. How did he "move the game"?
  • What makes Cues n Views a reliable source?
  • "Snooker then went into a period of decline through the 1950s and 1960s, with little public interest in the game beyond those who played it" - not verified by Sydney Morning Herald source.
  • "this failed to attract attention and was very short-lived" - not verified by sources.
    • I have removed both of the above and replaced by a source specifically mentioning that Davis though the sport was in decline. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Snooker quickly became regarded as a mainstream game in the United Kingdom" - I'm not sure this is really verified by the source. What part(s) of the source are you relying on for this?
    • Added an additional source stating that it became a mainstream game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ranking tournaments" - might be worth explaining what these are, or just omitting "ranking"
  • "conclusion" seems like an overlink.
  • "Snooker tournaments have been adapted to make them more suitable for television audiences" - not verified by source.
  • "the top players earning several million pounds over the course of their careers" - is there a source that is a bit more specific?
    • How much more specific would you like? I think that source covers that there is lots of money in the tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no mention of anything outside the men's professional game after 1926. Consider adding something that will at least acknowledge the amateur game here. (It does get coverage later in the article). You could also consider mentioning the Women's Professional Snooker Championship.

Gameplay

  • The references for the para starting "The cloth on a snooker table.." are both commercial sites, and don't verify all the info there.
  • "Some table men" ?
  • Most of the para beginning "Snooker accessories include chalk for the tip of the cue..." is not supported by the source stated.
  • "using the ends of their cue sticks" - yes, but consider omitting.
  • "The objective of the game is to score more points than one's opponent by potting object balls in the correct order" - Is it? I'm not sure that the rules say this.
  • The rules don't explicitly state this, no, but it could be argued that no source is necessary, per WP:OBVIOUS. I guess it's more of an interpretation of the rules in general, and based on our own knowledge of the game, so could equally be construed as WP:OR. Would you prefer that we just cut this sentence out altogether? Then the section would begin "At the start of a frame, the object balls are positioned on the table as shown in the illustration opposite." Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about, instead, using the rules (3 f,g and h) to explain here who wins a frame/game/match? I do feel feel that "The objective is .." is WP:OR given that the only source cited for this paragraph is the rules. We won't be able to have 100% precision without restating every rule, but I think it is important to have a source if we talk about the objective of the game. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Governance and tournaments

  • "founded in 1968 as the Professional Billiard Players' Association" - there's a lot of sources with wrong info about this, and I'm aware we're interested in verifiability not "truth" but the PBSA was founded in 1946, not 1968.
  • "annually since 1927 (except during World War II and between 1958 and 1963)." - not in 1967 either. Twice in 1970, and not in 1971. Maybe slightly tweak the wording rather than list exceptions. I won't suggest that you go into detail about World Professional Match-play Championship v World Championship.
  • "as of 2019 no such tour has been organised" - source is from late 2018, not 2019.
  • "Players Tour Championship in 2010 and returned as the Challenge Tour in 2018" – source is from 2004….
  • "the wholly owned commercial subsidiary of WPBSA" – contradicted by source used.

Important Players

  • "In the professional era of snooker, which began with Joe Davis in the 1930s and continues until the present day, a relatively small number of players have succeeded at the top level." - not verified by sources
  • "retiring unbeaten" – he retired from the championship, not from all tournaments.
  • "Undefeated in World Championship play, he was only beaten four times in his life, all of these defeats coming after his retirement and inflicted by his own brother Fred Davis. He did lose matches in handicapped tournaments, but on level terms these four defeats were the only losses of his entire career" – can probably be simplified. The "Undefeated in World Championship play" point has been made in the previous sentence.
  • "the next dominant force was his younger brother Fred Davis" - not supported by source used.
  • "By 1947, Fred Davis was deemed ready by his brother to take over the mantle, but lost the world final to the Scotsman Walter Donaldson" – not supported by source. Is “Scotsman” required?
  • Could mention that Pulman won in 1957.
  • "John Pulman was the most successful player of the 1960s, winning seven consecutive world titles between April 1964 and March 1968 when the World Championship was contested on a challenge basis" – not supported by source used.
    • Changed soruce 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • "Unlike previous decades, the 21st century has produced many players of a similar standard, rather than a single player raising the bar. Ronnie O'Sullivan has come the closest to dominance since 2000" – source is basically a list of winners. IMO it does not support this content.
    • Added a ref Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Journal of Complex Networks source is very interesting. The cition needs some tidying. I haven't digested it yet, so have a couple of questions. It says that "John Higgins is the highest performing Snooker player of all time", and, looking at table three in the article, wouldn't it be fairer to say in the following sentence in Wikipedia's article that Higgins (2nd 2000–2009; 5th 2010–2019) has been more dominant that O'Sullivan (1st 2000–2009; but 8th 2010–2019)?
        • I'm not sure we can make that argument. I've simply changed that he's won the world crown the most times. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, what part of the Journal of Complex Networks source are you relying on to support "Unlike previous decades, the 21st century has produced many players of a similar standard, rather than a single player raising the bar."?
  • "After Joe Davis created the World Snooker Championship" - not verified by source cited.
  • "but lost the world final to Walter Donaldson." - not verified by source cited.

Notes

External links

  • Consider removing the EBSA link, or adding other continental associations.

Infobox

  • Equipment - billiard table, not snooker table.
  • Lee's changed this back to snooker table, so I guess you need to discuss which one is correct!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Shamos reference is to his entry on snooker, it says "played with 22 balls on an English billiards table." I wouldn't mind "snooker table" if there's a decent source for it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue this is a WP:BLUE thing. Of course snooker is played on a snooker table. People have played snooker on pool tables, on the grass (see Lawn Billiards, and on circular tables. We go into detail as to what the tables look like, and they aren't the same as English Billiards tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink or gloss equipment terms.
  • Consider adding scoreboard to equipment list.
  • Venue - needs citing, or perhaps better to omit. (There was of course the outdoor Snooker at the 1960 Summer Paralympics.)
done Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • There are a few duplicate links.
      • I've fixed these ones, Rodney. Only thing I'm struggling for is book ref pages. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Book refs 117, 118, 120 are missing page numbers.
  • Newspaper refs 16, 119 are missing page numbers.

Pending and new points

  • In the lead, "founded in 1968" no longer appears in the article body.
    • Yeah, the lede reads just fine without saying when it was founded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is snooker really a variation of billiards, as stated by Boru, or of the other games mentioned? - I'm not 100% convinced by the suggestion above, but this isn't a blocker.
    • I've reworded slightly. All we know is that sources say that it combines rules of pyramid and black pool, but also I want to define that Billiards was played a lot at the time. Hopefully the new wording gets that across. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was organised by Joe Davis."- not verified by cited sources.
  • "IBSF World Snooker Championship designed for top amateur players was founded in 1963" - suggest something like "A World Championship for top amateur players...", as the IBSF didn't exist in 1963.
  • "the second-most popular show on BBC2 behind Morecambe and Wise." - I don't think that Morecambe and Wise was on BBC2. The source doesn't say that it was, IMO.
    • I think someone else commented that they'd like to know who was the first, but I don't have access to the source, I was reading that from an extract, but it's possible the main article doesn't say that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Morecambe and Wise began on BBC2 in 1968 before moving to BBC1 in 1971.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Pawnkingthree. Lee Vilenski, the source talks about Pot Black being on BBC2 and goes on a bit later to say "The programme ignited the snooker revolution by delivering viewing figures that stunned television executives. Pot Black rapidly rose to second in the ratings behind Morecambe and Wise." It doesn't doesn't specify BBC2 in that para; however now I know that the comedians were on BBC2, the current wording seems a fair interpretation. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like there's no longer a source that says "played on a billiard table" being used to support the term "snooker table", so no longer an issue there. (I discovered an entry in Shamos (2002) that says something along the lines that a snooker table is a billiard table, but with the spots required for snooker added.)
    • Pretty much. Happy to add supporting info, but it's the same table, as you say. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para beginning "The cloth on a snooker table .." is not all supported by the cited source.
  • Is ref 49 authored by Jimmy White, and is that the right title?
    • Whoops. Fixed, although I don't have a page number, just the google books preview. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early versions of the event were played over a much longer duration" – suggest amending to something like "Some finals of the event…" (some of the early finals were over a shorter duration than 35 frames).
  • Ref 64 (Hayton and Dee pp166-167) is a list of results, does not verify the info IMO.
  • "A similar secondary UK Tour was first played from the 1997–98 season, which was renamed the Challenge Tour in 2000, Players Tour Championship in 2010 and returned as the Challenge Tour in 2018" – not verified by sources cited.
  • "World Snooker limited responsible for the professional tour which is owned by both the WPBSA and Matchroom Sport." – capitalise "Ltd"; missing "is". Are you saying that the WPBSA and Matchroom Sport own World Snooker, or that they own the professional tour?
    • I thought it was both? WPBSA and Matchrom are the parents of WS limited, who run the tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has since been sponsored by various betting companies after the introduction of an EU-wide ban on advertising tobacco products" – sources used are from 2005 and 2006, I think this needs a newer source.
  • "he played only one tournament in 2013, the World Championship, which he won" – source is from 2012
  • "(no relation to Joe or Fred)" – not verified by sources cited.
    • Sure, I do think this is a WP:BLUE thing, more that we specifically aren't saying "he's another Davis lad". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The popularity of snooker has led to the creation of many variant versions, using different rules or equipment but based on the standard game of snooker, or similar in origin Some have only minor rule changes and others are more distinct games. Some versions of the game, such as six-red or ten-red snooker, are played with almost identical rules but with fewer object balls, reducing the time taken to play each frame" – not verified by source cited.
    • I've removed some of the fluff, and cut to the chase and begun with explaining the different versions off the bat. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Popular in the women's game" – not verified by sources cited.
  • "now largely in decline" – source is from 1925
    • That's a bit editorialised, so I've removed. Likely true, from what I've seen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed that bit. There's not much out there about this version. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • snookergames.co.uk is cited, even though an earlier comment says it was removed.

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • That should be all above covered BennyOnTheLoose, I'm going to spend a little time adding some book references to the inline citations, let me know if there's anything further that is preventing a support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Kumar (1999) ref needs to be replaced and the book removed from the Bibliography as it's a copyvio of Everton's books.
      • Ref 47 has dodgy Facebook archive link.
      • "..towards the opposite end of the table.[58][59][5] " refs aren't in numerical order.
      • What makes offthetelly.co.uk a reliable source?
      • What makes Pundit Arena, a "sports media publication that provide aspiring journalists and articulate fans with a platform to showcase their work", a reliable source?
      • Nothing major left to do from my perspective. The article seems like a suitable overview with major aspects covered based on what I've seen in sources. I'll have a final read through in the next day or so for anything that I think needs tweaking. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have done all of these now, BennyOnTheLoose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Lee Vilenski. I'm now happy to support. I wasn't originally intending for this to be a source review. However, I'm happy with the breadth and range of sources, and my concerns about particular sources, and instances where the sources hadn't supported the text, have all been resolved. So, subject to a co-ordinator being satified that this can be a source review, I'd be happy to support on sources as well as in general. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth, Gog the Mild, and Ian Rose: - now this one is together, and Benny is happy with the sourcing, is there anything further that I need to do? Can I start up another one whilst waiting for this one to close/more comments? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski, sorry but no. It needs review of the source formatting. I have listed it for this at rquests. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BennyOnTheLoose: your comments above being considered a full source review is fine by me, but could you confirm that you are also happy with the source formatting? I ask because a brief glance picked up several (minor) errors. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lee Vilenski I added in a couple of details where I had them for references. Is there a location for the Barzun Press reprint of the Peall book? Gog the Mild, can you see any other issues pending on ref formats? If so, probably better to let another reviewer take a look before this passes. Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must say I've been unable to find either on the book itself nor online a print location. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

Lead/infobox

  • Why only one element of the infobox cited? Looks odd, can that not be cited in the main body?
  • I'm not overly struck by the infobox photo, but it's not a dealbreaker, wouldn't it be better to have an image of a competitive match?
    • I don't disagree exactly, but I do think it is a decent image to show how the game is played. There aren't many CC-BY-SA images that are clear and show the game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cloth (or "baize")" why not "cloth called "baize""?
  • "players[a] take turns" that footnote would be better placed in the main body too, you could say "individual players or sides" or similar in the lead if you felt it was important to keep that information in there.
  • "An individual frame of ... end of the frame" repetitive.
  • "snooker match ends ... winning the match" similar.
  • "a professional sport" link?
  • "snooker is now governed" the amateur game doesn't appear to be governed by WPBSA per infobox?
  • "has taken place since 1927. " annually.
    • Ah, but it's not been annually - see comments by Benny above - per the Challenge events, time out for the wars, and the 1970 event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the women's competitions should be mentioned before non-prof/disabled tournaments.

History

  • "in Jubbulpore, India" this was "Jabalpur" in the lead, be consistent with these names.
  • "pyramid pool, played ... black pool" why in italics? They weren't formatted that way in the lead.
  • "billiards table" it may not be clear that a billiards table is synonymous with snooker table here, although of course some billiards tables had no pockets, so not always the case.
  • "championship until 1946, when he retired from taking part in the championships" repetitive.
  • "new colour service" you've already mentioned colour television so the link should go there.
  • "second-most popular show" do we have any data on that, viewership etc? And behind what show?
  • You noted that the WC was discontinued in 1957 but didn't pick up on when it re-started (or why).
  • "to just fifteen" remove "just".
  • "dedicated 400 hours to snooker coverage, compared to just 14 minutes 40 years" is this per annum?
    • The source isn't specific about it, that's why I wasn't so specific. I'd assume this is just for the main event, but could potentially be per annum. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "interest in World Snooker Ltd. and " this the first mention of this, it needs introduction (and no full stop after Ltd).
    • I've removed the mention of this, I feel it's a bit too in depth for an article on the sport. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over a shortened length" reads odd, do you mean shortened duration?
    • I do, although strictly speaking, playing less frames doesn't neccesarily mean less time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sport continues to grow" how is that substantiated? Do you have figures for increase in participation over the years?
  • "The winner of the 2021 World Snooker..." You could name him.

Gameplay

  • ’ of the cushions is " you should explain what cushions are when you describe the difference in the size of the table and the size of the playing area.
  • "smaller tables using fewer red balls" at this point we don’t even know what a "red ball" is and why fewer of them is even an option.
    • Good catch, I've removed the balls piece, as from experience smaller tables simply have smaller balls. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nap affects the speed and trajectory of the cue ball," won’t it affect all balls?
    • Changed to "balls", although there's an argument that it effects the cue ball to a higher degree. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is shared between the players" seems odd to say that, all the balls are strictly shared between the players. If you mean "which the players take turns to use" or something that would make more sense to me.
  • "include chalk for the tip of the cue" explain why.
  • "playing shots that are difficult to play by hand" you name examples, e.g. swan, spider etc.
  • "potting object balls in the" you should introduce this term earlier.
    • I'm not sure it's suitable. Until the "Objective" section, we aren't talking about playing, just what the various things are. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "table as shown in the illustration opposite." Not opposite in my screen, half a screen’s scrolling down…
  • "unless it has entered a pocket"… in which case?
  • "The process of potting reds and colours alternately continues" or until all reds have been potted…
  • "the objective is to first pot a red ball; this is always the case" unless the player nominates a colour as a red following a foul…?
  • "only the six colour balls are left on the table" and the cue ball strictly.
  • "hoping to force their opponent into playing foul shots" how?
  • "decides who goes first" -> "who takes the first strike"?
  • "play again from where the balls have come to rest" or restoring the table to its previous setup and replaying the shot again?
  • "such as the World Championship uses" I definitely think this is an apt time to talk about the earlier WC’s where MASSIVE scorelines were commonplace, best-of-35-frame matches are relatively modern…
  • Isn’t there a link for "session"?

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Governance and tournaments

  • Link "ranking".
  • "World Snooker limited responsible for" again, odd use of italics and this sentence isn’t grammatically correct.
  • Colour ball points table needs a caption as it sits (on my screen) next to the "World ranking" section so to non-experts it may need explanation.
  • Is there a link for "seeding"?
  • "The current world rankings are" ranking is used three times in this one sentence…
  • "sponsored by Embassy from" tobacco company.
  • " is a difficult challenge that " get rid of that.
  • Triple Crown fact is "as of 2019".
  • "the Champion of Champions was established.[95] The Champion of Champions" repetitive.
  • "the majority of tournaments on the professional circuit require players to wear waistcoats and bow ties" out of interest to me, which ones don’t?
    • The Snooker Shoot Out doesn't, and things like the World Cup have flirted with it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association submitted" the WPBSA submitted…
  • "the World Snooker Federation, founded" what do this lot do that isn’t done by WPBSA? Are they in competition with one another?
    • WSF look after the amateur game under the umbrella of the WPBSA, it's quite confusing actually. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this is the oldest snooker competition still being played." In England or the world?
    • In the world. There are texts saying it was the first tournament ever played, but that has been disproven Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but as of 2018 no such tour has been organised" well that’s true as of 2021, right?
  • "The All-Party Parliamentary Group said" this links to a generic article, which APPG are you talking about here?

Important players

  • "Davis was … Joe was…" be consistent (I know you’re trying to avoid the Steve/Fred/Joe clash).
    • Indeed, (and I suppose Mark Davis, while we are at it.) I've changed to full names for all in this section, as the MOS has always been a bit confusing to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "take over the mantle" a little whimsical.
  • "1952 event boycotted by British professionals" why? This should be in the history section…
  • "1957 event.[123] John Pulman won the 1957 event and" link the 1957 event first time.
  • "winning streak" link.
  • You could link each of those world championships (e.g. in the "(2001, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2013, and 2020)" phrases.
  • "career centuries, and " centuries probably ought to be introduced in the Scoring section as it’s considered notable and people have lists of them etc. Along with 50s…


Variants

  • "The popularity of snooker has led to the creation of many variant versions, using different rules or equipment. Variants of snooker are cue games that are based on the standard game of snooker, or similar in origin." Merge, so something like "The popularity of snooker has led to the creation of many variant versions, using different rules or equipment but based on the standard game of snooker, or similar in origin."
  • "Created by Joe Davis, and introduced at…." This was mildly covered in the history section, probably need to be careful not to be too repetitive.

Just references to review on this first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Our own article has BBC Sport not italicised.
  • What’s the strategy on linking publishers/websites etc in the refs? It’s not clear.
  • Ref 4 vs Ref 8, both WPBSA refs both formatted differently.
  • Ref 15 is entitled Encyclopaedia Britannica but what’s actually being used??
  • Ref 17: pp. 228-229. Should be en-dash.
  • Ref 21 appears to have WWS and Women’s Snooker in the title, not necessary.
  • Ref 24, TIME -> Time
  • Ref 25, what makes FCSnooker.co.uk a high-quality RS?
  • Ref 27, avoid CAPITALISATION.
  • Ref 28: The Guardian, not the Guardian.
  • Why does ref 29 have a silver icon and not ref 28, both The Guardian?
  • Ref 38: I need a paid subscription to access that.
  • Ref 42: get rid of website from ref title.
  • Ref 46: Another different WPBSA format.
  • Ref 47: 227-228 needs en-dash.
  • Ref 48: What makes ActiveSG a high quality RS?
  • Ref 49: where is the author name mentioned in the source?
  • General: what makes these various seemingly minor equipment manufacturers’ self-published websites RS?
    • I'm working my way through removing them. Feel free to let me know of any I missed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 72: last time you used wst.tv you added WPBSA as a published. Check the others, e.g. ref 89, for consistency.
  • Ref 75: isn’t that just Coral the bookmakers rather than something called "Coral News"?
  • Ref 82: what makes The UK Sponsorship Database a high-quality RS?
  • Ref 99: our article on Reuters does not italicise it.
  • Ref 106, 107: These are BNA but not linked and noted as subscription only while ref 16 has an online link and denotes subs only.
  • Refs 114, 115: BBC News is not italicised per our article.
    • Will await your info. Do you just wany these made into publishers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 117: is that really the History Channel?
  • Refs 119, 120, 122: page numbers/ranges.
  • Refs 123 and 124 look the same to me.
  • Refs 138 to 140, abuse of "first/last" by the looks of it and a spaced hyphen in the title, should be en-dash.
  • Ref 144: Eurosport is not italicised.
  • Ref 147: what makes snookergames.co.uk a high quality reliable source?
  • Ref 150 has the website in the title, not needed.
  • Ref 151: what makes euronet.nl a high quality reliable source? And if it stays, fix the spaced hyphen.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think I've covered all of the referencing issues, aside from the italics info mentioned. Happy to fix up with your suggestions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I've changed the refences to be publishers not work. Just the book page numbers are required, which I'm working on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, but if I see an open review with no comments after a week or so I give a nudge, just in case it has slipped either the nominator's or reviewer's mind. In your own time. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm content that my issues have been resolved, and I might be a bit sketchy online over the next couple of weeks so I'm happy to support at this time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24[edit]

In general, I'm leaning towards support, mainly per my read through and comments at PR. However, I'm a bit concerned that some of the (seemingly high-quality) book sources are under used (this is a point I brought up at PR as well). This of course brings up the issue of having a thorough survey or relevant literature for the sake of doing so, vs sourcing what information is needed from where its available. Some specific comments:

  • Neither of the Everton books appear to be cited in the article
  • (Minor point) Refs 62 and 123 and should presumably be sfn like the others
  • Hayes is not used anywhere either

I do wonder if sources like Maume, Clare and Nunns are really preferable over some of these, especially when the Evertons are completely unused. Interested to hear what the nominators think of these comments and sorry if I'm being a nuisance... Aza24 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't mind taking a look at these. I tend to think that we cite the information in the article, and that additional references, ones that are great quality are used as an overall to cover the article, and then we cite specifically to the books in question for specific parts inline. Happy to go through the article and inline cite using these items, but as I don't have copies; I'd have to rent some out just to add the inline to the article, where there are already RS covering that information. The second point is absolutely right, and I'll fix that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that questioning sources is valid for an FAC. I was a little disappointed to find, having bought the Hayes book, that it seems to contain plagiarism from Morrison's The Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Snooker - some of the entries barely have the text changed over several paragraphs. I'd regard that one as dispensible. As I mentioned in the PR, I'd expect Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards to be a key source, as it's relatively recent. (A lot of the good books like Everton's History are much older). Some of Everton's older books do have more of an international perspective (e.g. Snooker: The Records (1985)) and he covers the amateur game in detail in most of his works - I think it's possible the article is still too focused on professional play, but there's also an argument that it's the professional game that gets most attention in reliable sources. I also really like Masters of the Baize but as that focuses on individuals, it might not be all that useful here. Shamos's Encyclopedia is an excellent source IMO, and I'm glad to see it employed. I'm not sure that the CueSport book has been well used, as most of the references seem to point to pages of results rather than the narrative history. I haven't identified any glaring omissions from the article, so citing what's there properly to an RS, not necessarily to the best RS, works for me. I'm also interested to see other reviewers' views on this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, absolutely - I'm not saying it's not a valid criticism, just that whilst book sources are fantastic, everything in the article is already cited to RS. We could absolutely go through the article and inline cite to Cue Ball Wizards, and the Shamos Encyclopedia, but it may be a little redundant for an FAC. I'd be interested if there was items in these books that are completely omited in the article we have, as that may help on the article. I think because I have a lack of these book sources, I've used a lot more of those fully available; or ones I can get my hands on. However, there is a version of Black Farce on google books, so I've added a couple sfns to that, and I'll add some more. Would that, perhaps give you both less worries? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, if I were to add some more inline book citations, would you be happy to support the nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, I rather awkwardly missed some of these messages earlier. I think in general it would, and I see you've already added some Everton citations. The redundancy is what I was alluring to earlier ("for the sake off..."), but if said books are in the bibliography I would expect inline for them, otherwise they would fit better in a further reading section. Aza24 (talk) 04:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 Indeed, I've added some additional. The only non-inline cited text I have on order (will arrive on Wednesday, apparently), so I'll thoroughly cite pieces from the text when I get hold of it (I can remove or leave it there until then). Let me know if there is anything additional actionable :). Everything else you have brought up has been addressed now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, I have now got the Everton book, so this is now cited. I will add a couple more pieces with some below, but is there anything outstanding for this nom that you'd like me to address? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. The referencing has certainly improved! A couple more things:
  • The Everton refs aren't connecting to the bibliography (1985 vs 1986)
I'll take a look now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some ideas on images:
  • Is there any historical image that could be included in the History section? Maybe an image from the first championship or of Sir Neville Chamberlain? (Or both?)
We had such a thing, but it was removed over licencing issues. I'm still trying to find a free image of Chamberlain. I think it's unlikely we'd find an image from the 1927 event, and it's likely if it did exist, it'd probably be unlikely we could trace the copyright owner (and then they would have had to have died in the 20 years following the event for it to be free. We do have images of Joe Davis, but that is further down in the notable players list, which is I think where he belongs. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear you've been working on this, it feels lacking without an image, but I can certainly understand the difficulty
  • On my 13inch screen, the images in the gameplay don't really line up to where they're talked about in the text. Might I suggest something (which you can feel free to reject)? Perhaps the first three/four pictures could be converted into a mini gallery right below the Equipment section (and before the rules section)—like this? Or maybe the images before the text or in the middle? It might be nice to consolidate them better than have a long column. BTW later images line up perfectly if something like this is done
I can have a look into this, although in my opinion, images are to be used to accent the prose, which is why I don't really like galleries. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually I would concur completely, but at the moment, the "A shot using a rest..." image shows up next to the second paragraph of the objective section, which doesn't really make sense. There are certainly other options available, but I thought I'd make you aware of this
  • Though I understand the sport is first and foremost in the UK, I wonder if a bit more could be said about modern play in China and India (I'm looking at here)—perhaps in the Governance and tournaments section?
    • We do say However, the popularity of the game in Asia, with emerging talents such as Liang Wenbo and more established players such as Ding Junhui and Marco Fu, boosted the sport in the Far East - I suppose I could also mention this slightly more, but it is at the very least mentioned in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems to be it, looking on track for sure. Aza24 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to support as I'm confident in the article, though I would still recommend taking a second look at the image layout. Aza24 (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This is clearly an important topic, so I want to give it every chance, but the nomination has now been open a month, and while it has attracted a fair bit of attention it has no supports. Unless there are signs of a consensus to promote forming over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and minor comments from Chidgk1[edit]

"gained its identity" sounds a bit odd but not sure what to put instead - maybe "was invented" or "took shape"

Suggest you install https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors as it shows a couple which need fixing

  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'd never seen that script, so I've done a little work with it to make sure things are up to date. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do baize and cue ball need to be in quotation marks?
  • ...and that players risk "burnout". - why quotation marks here?
  • He was only beaten on level terms by Fred Davis - I'd add that it was his brother here
  • Has there been any detail published about how the rules developed in the early days? Any variants that were discarded before settling on current rules?
    • It's all abit wishy washy. There is a source that describes the scoring, where the blue and pink are reversed. Things like the "foul and a miss" rule is more modern as well. Everything else, from early 20th century sources seem to suggest the rules are very similar. I'd really like a source to make this connection, rather than me doing it on my own. It's possible History of Snooker and Billiards has some mention of this, which I'll recieve my copy on wednesday, otherwise I'd suggest we are WP:ORing a bit to make the connection. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
intriguing. will wait till wednesday with baited breath.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good news Casliber, it has arrived. It is much as I though, it does (albeit not in-depth) cover some changes in rules. They have been mostly the same since 1919, with some regional differences prior, that I've covered. The only rules that I can find that are different now, is the touching ball (1927), the minimum four point foul (no date, 1920s somewhen), and the foul and a miss rule, which isn't covered in this book, as I think it's a post 1986 thing (I think 1995, but sourcing is poor). I've added some of this to the article, hopefully this covers some of your worries. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tidbits added are exactly what I mean. Nice work! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking on track for FA-hood WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting review by Amakuru - Passed[edit]

  • Refs 1-2: Not sure snooker needs to be italicised?
  • Ref 5: A publisher of "E. A. Clare & Son Limited" or similar would be good here.
  • Ref 6, and lots of others. World Snooker is italicised, it probably shouldn't be (and also, there are some cases where it isn't)
  • Ref 7: Since the publisher is given as "World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association", it doesn't seem necessary to also include "wpbsa.com" in the ref as that's their website anyway.
  • Ditto other refs that are the same.
  • Ref 8: "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" - is stated twice
  • Ref 27 & 74 (plus others): One gives the web address, the other doesn't. I'd suggest it's not needed, but at least make it consistent.
  • Ref 59: Are there no specific page numbers? Not sure why this is cited to a whole chapter, when others from the same book had pages.
    • So, I got the eBook version of this. As grand as it is, it doesn't give strict page numbers. The early pages are clear where they are, but this chapter is about halfway through the book. I'd love to give specific pages, but I feel like I would be speculating. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 61: Maybe list David Puddy as the author. I'm slightly dubious of this one as a source, but he is a ref himself I guess.
  • Ref 65 has an italicised BBC Sport, while all others are non-italics
  • Ref 70: As a magazine, I'd think Snooker Scene should be italicised
    • But, it's not the magazine I am citing, it's their online presence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 77: The formatting looks strange here. Lots of different refs in one footnote, and with * symbols. Were these meant to be separate refs?
    • These were bundled citations, would you not do it this way. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lee Vilenski: it's kind of unreadable at present. I'd suggest either splitting them out, or at least formatting them so they appear in list format.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I hadn't realised it had become broken like that - not sure when that happened. Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        aha, that explains it. Happy to sign off then. Congrats on the pass! 😎  — Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 113: Akita Prefecture is the publisher here.
  • Ref 114: Italics for website
  • Ref 116: Don't need website and publisher name for the same thing

That's probably about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Amakuru - thanks for stepping in on this one. The article means a lot to me, so I'm super glad to have got it there. Apologies for the issues with that cite, I was doing most of the fixes on mobile, which doesn't always show the punctuation right anyway. Thanks again, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17:"p." → 'pp.'.
  • Bibliography should be in alphabetical order.
    • According to the MOS, it should be chronological, which I've added.
That is when a bibliography is used in the sense of an article's subject's works. (MOS:WORKS.) For lists of sources expanding on short references - as in this case - they should be in alphabetical order. (In passing MOS:NOTES discourages but does not forbid titling sections on lists of citations to sources "Bibliography" - "Bibliography may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography".)
Ok, that's pretty confusing. Why we have two different MOS requirements for a list of books is a bit silly, but I've put them in alphabetical order. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publisher locations or not - be consistent.
    • I've added all the ones I can find. I don't really get what we gain from removing them.
Me neither. Personally I think including them is best practice.
  • Collender: add the OCLC.
    • I'm not familiar with what this is.
See OCLC#Identifiers and linked data and WorldCat.
Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: this is obviously going to pass very soon, but I'm not sure why you've closed when my review above is still outstanding.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PS - all good now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2021 (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/Snooker/archive2&oldid=1041698352"