Talk:2015 World Snooker Championship/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

(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.
  • NP Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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."
  • I don't think a split is suitable here, it's not too long, and on the same subject. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    • It didn't read quite right to me - I've added a word ("this"). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Added. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• 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.
  •  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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.
  • See 2019 World Snooker Championship for how I handled this when an amateur made the event. I'm quite happy with it being writtem as 32 professional players, as it's what is supposed to happen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Ah, I missed the 2019 amateur. Looks OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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"?
  • This just says modern, as opposed to modern era. When the "era" starts, is irrelevant, as it's just commenting that it used to be a different type of format. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Can the word modern be removed without losing any meaning? The Championship was a knockout when it was originally held in the twenties. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Well, exactly, that's the reason why I wanted to mention that the tournament was held for 47 years successively in a knockout variant. It's difficult to confirm exactly what classifies as a championship if you include the challenge match years. I've reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks Lee Vilenski. I'm happy to pass the article for GA. Great work from you as always. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Changed. I don't think that the fourth time is particularly notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Removed, I dislike these types of stats regardless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• • Covered all of the above BennyOnTheLoose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks Lee Vilenski. It's not a blocker but I'm suggesting the deletion of one occurrence of the word "modern." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

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: