Jump to content

Talk:2015 World Snooker Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2015 World Snooker Championship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2020Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 5, 2015.
Current status: Featured article

New format

[edit]

Hi, Wikiusers. What is opinion so I can do: [7]. Regards. --Դեմ խմբակային իշխանությանը (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a mistake to start including detailed scores for matches other than finals. There's only limited support for the Snooker project at the moment and there are many more important things to do. Nigej (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie's absence from final

[edit]

Lead section currently ends with the sentence: "The final was the first not to feature Ronnie O'Sullivan since 2011." Why is it important to mention that in the lead? It's basically saying he was in the final in the 3 previous WSCs (2012/2013/2014), having not been in it in 2011, and he's not in it again this year. Dare I say: So what?! It doesn't seem appropriate to single out a particular player and highlight their recent statistics like this just because someone might think it's relevant. Especially not in the lead. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. Typical "stato" type comment. Perhaps could be in Ronnie's article but not here. Nigej (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid. Fancruft. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 12:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


(I'll be looking to claim points for the 2020 WikiCup for this review.)

Comments part 1

Lee Vilenski - see review comments below. I'm happy to be challenged or discuss any of these. I might have some more to say, but this should be the bulk of my observations.

  • Made some hopefully uncontroversial minor edits, ran a script to fix dashes.
  • Lead: "that took place from 18 April to 4 May 2015 at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England." This is true but there were also qualifying stages. This is covered in the overview section, but re-consider whether it merits a mention in the lead as well.
    • Added qualifying to lede. 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Lead: "It was the 39th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship had been held at the Crucible and was the final ranking event of the 2014/2015 season." - maybe break into two sentences, something like "It was the 39th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship had been held at the Crucible. The tournament was the final ranking event of the 2014/2015 season."
  • Lead: " Betfred sponsored the event for the first time in three years, having previously sponsored the tournament from 2009 to 2012" - this is not covered in the rest of the article and is unreferenced.
  • Lead: "event debutant Anthony McGill" - I think he was a Crucible (i.e. last 32) debutant rather than a world championship debutant. However, if the article is intended to be primarily about the Crucible stage then I'm happy with this - see comment above about "that took place..."

Qualifying isn't deemed part of the main event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: "A prize fund of £1,364,000 was awarded at the event.." I suggest a reword to something like "The event had a prize fund of £1,364,000.." as I'm not sure whether all the money is actually doled out at the event - if there's a source that says it is, then keep current wording.
  • Overview: I was going to suggest adding the word "professional" to "official world championship" as there is also the IBSF World Snooker Championship, even though there is a qualifier about professional in the next paragraph. However, this year, as in some others, there were amateur players too (as per the ref "quali"). I guess we can take the sentences that starts "The world championship sees 32 professional players compete in one-on-one snooker matches in a single elimination format.." as a statement which is true now, but may not be in the future, as I don't think any non-professional player has ever reached the last 32. So I don't think any amendment is actually required, but I'm leaving this comment here to show that I did try to think about it.
  • Format: "the 47th successive world championship to be contested through the modern knockout format." I don't think the knockout format in itself is modern (in World Championship Snooker). Is the point that it is the 47th championship since the Championship reverted to a knockout format after having being contested on a challenge basis for a while, and that this change is regarded as the start of the "modern era"?
  • Semi-finals:"For the fourth time in modern snooker history, all four World Championship semi-finalists were English." I'm not sure about this (my italics). I think it may have been the first time since the Championship reverted to a knockout tournament that all four semi-finalists were English. The stated BBC source confirms that all four were English, but not whether this was the first/fourth time in "modern" snooker. This needs a different source or should be removed. Even if "modern era" is defined in the "Format" section it might still be useful to recap what period is being referred to here.
  • Final: "Murphy was attempting to become the first player since Alex Higgins to win a second world title ten years after his first." I believe that this is true but it doesn't seem to be verified by the sources at the end of the statement.
  • Final: reference "ibti_Shau" - WP:RSP says "There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable." There is probably an alternative source that can be used.

Closing comments

  • I had a look through everything showing over 5% on the Earwig Copyvio tool - no concerns.
  • No MOS:SNOOKER or other MoS problems that I could see.
  • Article is well written, covers the event appropriately, uses suitable sources for verification, and is neutral as per WP:NPOV.
  • I'm happy with all the responses from Lee Vilenski to my comments.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]