Talk:2016 World Snooker Championship/GA1

GA Review

WITHDRAWN

Going to withdraw my nomination. Article isn't where I'd like it to be. Thanks for your review!

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.

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

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is my first snooker article I've ever attempted to review. Feel free to correct me if my comments about sourcing/phrasing/terminology are incorrect. If you have any comments/questions as well, feel free to ping me here.

Lead

"The 2016 World Snooker Championship[a] was a professional snooker tournament, that took place from 16 April to 2 May 2016 at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England, the 40th year that the World Snooker Championship had been held at the venue." - two sentences please.
- Split Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
"It was the tenth and last ranking event of the 2015/2016 season. " - there's no indication that this is the case mentioned or cited in other paragraphs.
- added, and cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of the three cites that you added, only one confirms it (the snooker.org 2015/2016 calendar one). I recommend dropping the other two cause they don't verify any part of the sentence. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:LEAD, the stats for global audience figures is needed to be mentioned and cited in the subsquent paragraphs, same with the 210 million for china.
- added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - citations #72 and #73 are the same source by the way, but just different access dates. (minor point). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"he announced his retirement a week later on live BBC television." - Davis's retirement in the first round section doesn't state it was on BBC nor is it mentioned it was exactly a week later. If you word it the way you mentioned it in the first round section, it'd be fine.
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
"After beating Robert Milkins 10–6 in the first round, Sam Baird 13–11 in the second round, Kyren Wilson 13–8 in the quarter-finals, and Fu 17–15 in the semi-finals, Selby defeated Ding 18–14 in the final to claim his second world title." - Seems like a long winded sentence. I suggest either simplifying or breaking it up into two sentences.
- consolodated Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
"Selby became the 13th player to win the World Snooker Championship more than once, and the sixth player to win more than one world title at the Crucible." - neither fact is mentioned in the final section for Selby's and Ding's match.
- removed - too statcrufty for me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
Maybe move Bingham's first round loss and Crucible curse to the second paragraph for chronological purposes (qualifying -> first round -> semi finals etc). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this sentence should be moved after O'Brien's retirement so it won't be jumping from semi-final, first round and final. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Ding Junhui and Alan McManus set a new record in their semi-final for the most century breaks achieved in a professional match (10), with Ding also setting a new record for the most centuries by one player in a single world championship match (7)" - I'm not sure if the brackets part seem like sidenotes and not part of the actual sentence. Also, now I read it, it does seem long to me. Maybe break it into two sentences? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summary

Note to self: - waiting for Yorkshire Post article via the Resource Exchange.
- I have a copy of the Yorkshire Post article. It doesn't say the championship is annual nor that it's the official championship for snooker. If 1927 World Snooker Championship is to be believed, it didn't become the world championship until 1935. New source needed.
  - Strictly speaking, it wasn't annual when it started. Something can still be annual, even if it wasn't annual in the past. It was still the world championship - which has a different meaning - just with a different name in 1927-34. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. Could an additional source be added to back up this part? I don't know if the source is clear enough to link the previous name to current name without searching outside of the article, plus there isn't a clear connection that it's annual now, and not then. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added as a note Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- "The champioship was founded as the "Professional Snooker Championship" until 1935," - technically should be 1934 based on the source year (I need to request this on the Resource Exchange). Also typo with championship. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "and became an annual knockout tournament in 1969" - yes but the history of snooker source doesn't confirm it became annual in 1969 with this version, only that it was reverted back to knockout status in 1969. New source needed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:58, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added a cite Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The sport originated by players from the United Kingdom" - sounds odd as the previous statement said the sport was originated by the British Army in India. I don't think a sport would be originated twice. Do you mean "originally played"?
- A little pedantic, as those in the British Army would be from the United Kingdom. I'll reword. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to the "was founded" and "was originated" as they seem the same to me and redundant.
    - Those are two completely different things. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you explain this part to me? To me it seems the same and I'm not seeing a difference. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, origins of something are generally where something is forged, while something being founded is more of an official thing. I've just removed for clarity Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You didn't have to do that. But thank you anyways Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The sport originated by players from the United Kingdom, however, in modern times, the sport has transferred to being played worldwide, specifically in Southeast Asia, such as in China" - i think this should be two sentences cause it sounds like a runon sentence. Also, "however" is a words to watch word, so I'd recommend dropping it when making two sentences. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- The Rise of China source doesn't state Commonwealth Europe snooker players, nor being played in Thailand or Hong Kong.
  - removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}Y
- "specifically in Southeast Asia, such as in China" - seems redunant based on the removal of Thailand and Hong Kong. If "in Southeast Asia, such as" was removed, it'd make more sense as the sentence suggests snooker as been played in more than one Southeast Asia country but only mentions one country.
  - I see this was also completely removed. Again, you didn't need to, but another Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which nations are you referring to with Commonwealth? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, generally the old British Empire. Places like Canada, Australia and the like. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. Unfortunately, the rise of China source doesn't mention canada nor Australia. It mentions British Isles, mainland and continental Europe. An additional source would be needed for the Commonwealth part if I'm not reading this incorrectly. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see this part was removed. If you prefer the removal, then Y.
References #5 and #6 are both from 2018, but this is the 2016 event. 2016 sources would be needed for consistency especially since the sources mention information that isn't relevant to this year's event.
- changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Almost there. The Snooker HQ one is relevant, but the other one is talking about the Betway UK Championship, not the World Snooker Championship for 2016. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Replaced the other with a BBC article on the draw. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still not exactly backed up. The BBC Sport source for the 2016 results doesn't say how the 32 players were selected and skips over the qualification rounds. If one of your already sourced articles mentions this, then you could swap it for this one. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I just linked to the actual draw. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You weren't kidding with actual draw. I think the draw from the seeds/qualifers plus the other sources should satisfy it.Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"a pre-tournament qualification round." - shouldn't it be "pre-tournament qualification rounds" as the 16 qualifiers who didn't automatically advance played through 3 rounds to get to the main draw, not one? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The first world championship in 1927 held in Camkin's Hall, Birmingham, England was won by Joe Davis." - sounds grammatically off as the phrasing suggests to me more than one world championship was held in 1927 at Camkin's Hall.
- reword Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- "first world championship in was" -> extra "in" that needs to be dropped. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest having a new source to show the winners from 2012-15 as Global Snooker only goes to 2011. This would help verify no one else hit seven wins upon the 2016 event.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "most successful player in the modern era" - I think this would need to be rewritten to show as of 2016, this was true as this is the past.
  - That would only need to happen if this was no longer true. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Bingham first championship" -> Bingham's first championship
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The winner of the 2018 event earns" -> 2016 event earned (we're not covering the 2018 event here ;) )
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be 2016 event earned (past tense) as the event already happened.--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per prize fund, a new source is needed to show the total prize amount was £1,500,100.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Almost. City A.M source says £1.5m, not the exact amount of £1,500,100. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeding and qualifying rounds

Need a source that says the top sixteen seeds automatically qualified for the main draw based on the world rankings, with Bingham being number one.
- Hmm, most sources don't actually say exactly this, as it's how these tournaments always work. I'll see if I can cite it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still needs a source, (I presume you're still looking for one). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cited to draw Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stuart Bingham was seeded 1" -> was seeded first?
  - Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Ponds Forge source doesn't say that the qualifiers had to win three best-of-19-frames matches, just three matches.
- Aye, but the information is sourced to the results elsewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - And which source is that? If two citations were next to each other backing part of the sentence, then it'd be fine. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New source needed as Steve Davis's loss in the first round does not talk about the other nine former champions - Ebdon onwards - advancing to the main draw either by winning qualifying rounds or automatically placed in the draw (I'm referring to the 2nd usage of this source, not 1st).
- added some cites Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - This part is not exactly supported either. Of the former champions, only Bingham and O'Sullivan are mentioned to having won this championship before (in the Stuart Bingham faces Ali Carter source), leaving 5 out of 9 unconfirmed. Also, Steve Davis's first round loss doesn;t state they "automatically" join the last 32, nor that they were in the top 16. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Sport source about Junhui doesn't say it was the first time since 2007 he had to participate in qualifying matches for the Crucible.
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- It also doesn't mention he defeated Casey or Muir, just Bond.
  - Added a source Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- "He did that at the loss of just seven frames," - sounds a tiny bit promotional with "just".
  - reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - "only" doesnt sound right either. Maybe I'm reading too much into it as "at the loss of only seven frames" makes the seven frames stand out in tone for me. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - "only" is regular word for this type of information though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"but she lost 1–10" - reword "but" per Editorializing. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - "losing 1–10" wouldn't it be past tense as the first half of the sentence was past? Again, I could be reading too much into it lol --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reworded

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First round

Need source(s) for the dates of the first round and that the matches were best out of 19.

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best out of 19 isn't 100% confirmed as the number of frames per match fluctuate from 13 - 19. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it does. A best-of-X matches means the most amount of X. A best of three is a first to two. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about Steve Davis's retirement seems out of place and too overly detailed. As Davis's retirement was already mentioned in the seeding rounds part, I don't think this needs to be repeated.
- Well, he announced his retirement during the first round, if he wasn't such a big deal, I'd agree. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the retirement is more suitable here, then the retirement isn't needed to be repeated in the seeding rounds in my opinion. I'm not sure if the lifting the trophy for the last time and standing ovation is too much detail. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removed puff. It's important to note that he did do this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Ali Carter led 5–1 and 8–5" - maybe drop the 5-1 part as Carter was still leading as of 8-5? minor suggestion
- Just shows that he was four up after 6, and still held a lead towards the end of the match Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. As it's verified, I guess I'll leave it be.Y
"Carter levelled the match" -> tied the match?
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question, which variety of English is this article using? If it's British English then I think leave the above alone.
  - Brit-eng. I changed the above as tied is still fine in briteng Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
"17th victim of the Crucible curse, as no first time defending champion won the event the following season." - I don't know about "victim" in this phrase as it's not an actual killing curse. Also i think "defending champion had won" or "has won" for grammar.
- The "curse" is still in effect, that's why it's in present tense. Sources use the word "victim", but I don't mind changing Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I had to pick, I'd say reword "victim". Also, perhaps specific the curse is specific to this venue (like the lead) cause I've learnt it's been going on pre-Crucible years. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reworded Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"also suffered a first-round exit" - suffered doesn't sound neutral.
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
I don't think the Smiling Assassin source is clear enough to state that Murphy lost the previous year in the final. It says he and Bingham were finalists, but doesn't specify which person won/lost. I think a slight tweak is needed.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Still not tweaked per "the previous year's runner-up" --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:51, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - added a ref to confirm he was the runner-up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"As a result, Maguire dropped out of the world's top 16 at the end of the season." - not exactly 100%. The quote said "is now certain to drop out of the world’s top 16." so at the time it wasn't confirmed with this source. Also, not sure if this is out of scope as it's not part of the event, but I could see it's relevance.
- This is the last tournament of the season, so they are one and the same. Strictly speaking the points don't get added until after the final, but it's unimportant, as the match did cause him to not be able to remain in the top 16, as noted Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, could the source be switched? This one is vague with "is now certain" and causes doubt. If a source specifically said "will drop out" then I'd support it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just said "end of tournament", which is what the source says. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"mandatory post-match press conference, and to talk to the tournament broadcasters" - word for word/close paraphrasing.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good enough as the majoirty of the words can't really be rephrased that much.Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- same with "formal warning"
  - - reworded
- would "formal warning" fall under WP:LIMITED? To me no, cause of "formal". --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"advised that further breaches of contract would lead to fines." - advised seems like the wrong word to me as it doesn't sound like a recommendation, and more like a warning.
- as above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
"Following losses by Bingham, Murphy, Ebdon, and Dott" - Bingham's and Murphy's loss was already mentioned in the two paragraphs above in this section, so I don't think it's needs repeating because of "following"
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Selby's first round win doesn't state Williams's and O'Sullivan's first round wins. Yes, O'Sullivan was mentioned before, but Williams wasn't. I recommend having a source with both of them winning their respective matches plus referring them as previous winners for consistency. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Almost. The Eurosport source would need to be bundled with BBC Sport (Selby's first round win) as Eurosport doesn't specifically say Selby was a former champion, only a former world number one. Combining would support all of it.--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - added a ref to cover Selby/ Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:02, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second round

"The second round was played between 21–25 April, played as best-of-25-frames, over three sessions" - source needed for the entire part.
- Sourced Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"by beating the opponents who had defeated them the prior year" - source needed
- added sources Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
Don't forget a citation date for Trump's 2015 win (minor point). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The given source for McManus's second round match does not talk about his 2015 match, that he lost, nor the scores for that year.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Same problem with Ding.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In response, tournament organisers stated that they had taken steps such as changing cloths and cushions to improve playing conditions" - taken steps is a creative phrase close to the source. Also, it was only one cloth (minor nitpick) that was changed.
- reworded. Nah, actually it was both tables (there's two), and the source even says they planned to do it a second time before the semi-finals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. World Snooker said they already changed the cloth and cushions the previous Wednesday and would change the cushions again on Saturday. So i think the statement would need to be adjusted as it currently reads that they changed both after Carter's match on 23 April 2016 (which was a Saturday). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"After going 7–0 and then 11–5 up" - not sure why the "up" part is there.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "withstood a fightback" - is this terminology? It doesn't really sound neutral.
  - Reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- "advance to his first quarter-final" - I don't think so, since Wilson won the Shanghai Masters, so I'd assume he played at a quarterfinals. I think you mean first Crucible quarter-final as he only appeared in the first round in 2014 and lost.
  - Yeah, first world championship quarter, added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
"Kyren Wilson led at both 7–0 and then 11–5 over Mark Allen before Allen won four straight frames to trail 11-9, but Kyren won the next two to win the match 13–9 and advance to his first World Championship quarter-final" - i suggest dropping but and making this into two sentences. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Selby's second round win doesn't state Baird was a qualifier (Baird's not mentioned in the seeding/qualifying rounds above section either).
- removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
McManus's age isn't mentioned with the Cheshire Live article, nor do I think it's relevant as I don't see anyone else's age mentioned either.Y
- "several other veteran players" - who? If you're referring to Higgins and Williams, then I think this part either has to be dropped (as it's not supported in one source alone) or merge Higgins and Williams sources together.Y
  - removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheshire Live also doesn't say Higgins hadn't reached the quarterfinals since 2011.
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
The Guardian doesn't say Fu reached the quarterfinals the first time in a decade.
- added a cite to sat this Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
"However, Hawkins prevailed in the decider to win the match 13–12, the first time in 14 years that Hawkins had beaten O'Sullivan in a competitive match, and only the second time in 13 years that O'Sullivan had failed to reach the quarter-finals' Long sentence that i recommend breaking it up into two sentences. Also words to watch rephrase with "however" (editoralizing),
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite losing, O'Sullivan made four century breaks and eight more breaks over 50, scoring 1409 points to Hawkins's 1135." - this one's odd as the previous matches don't talk about points or breaks over 50. I'm wondering why there's an more emphasis to this match in compassion to others. Also "despite" rewording due to editorializing.
- O'Sullivan losing is a big deal. Scoring so many big breaks and losing is also so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "four centuries and eight more breaks over 50 – scoring 1409 points to his opponent’s 1135" close paraphrasing of Hawk Downs Rocket source. I think if this part was removed, the other parts would be relevant. It shows that O'Sullivan didn't make it to the quarterfinals only twice in 13 years. As for the first time Hawkins defeated O'Sullivan, that might be too much detail, but it does seem relevant at the same time. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Scoring over 260 points more than your opponent, but losing is a big deal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter-finals

Snooker.org doesn't back up "26–27 April, played as best-of-25-frames, over three sessions" - new source needed (same issue with above usages).
- Apologies, I've been linking to the wrong snooker.org site (Årdalen, Hermund. "Results (World Championship 2016) - snooker.org". snooker.org (in Norwegian). Retrieved 13 September 2019.) shows the dates.
"comprehensive 13–3 victory" - comprehensive seems like an odd word here, I'd drop it for neutrality.

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- "saw him win the match with a session to spare" - redundant as it's already mentioned he won 13–3.

Not all sessions are eight frames. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i see the source said he won it in two sessions, so assumingly if the match had three sessions, it'd be fine. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

[reply]

- "with a session to spare" is also word for word copy.

not a lot I can do "session to spare" is a technical term. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize it was til I googled. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

[reply]

Selby's and Wilson's match source doesn't state it was the 4th time Selby reached the Crucible semi-finals

removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

[reply]

- It also doesn't say the highest break of the tournament made by Wilson during the 20th frame, just the break amount.

I added the source for the centuries in general. Should be plenty. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems, the cenutires source is from the wrong year (2015 instead of 2016), plus doesn't mention which frame it was. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Alan McManus came from 9–11 behind" - i think 9-11 behind should be flipped.

Scores need to be consistent. Either 9-11 and 13-11, or 11-9 and 11-13. I prefer the original Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- "and reach his first Crucible semi-final since 1993, as well as his first ranking semi-final appearance since the 2006 Grand Prix." - i suggest breaking this into two sentences for grammar.
  - I see the Grand Prix part was removed. Based on the new wording, "and reach" -> and reached. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of the 2006 Grand Prix in either source for McManus's first ranking semi-final appearance.

Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

[reply]

"became the oldest Crucible semi-finalist" - shouldn't it be second oldest? I know the veteran McNanus source says oldest since Reardon at age 52. I don't mind keeping it this way if it sounds fine.

Oldest since... He wasn't the second oldest (I think that's Fred Davis). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as the source does say oldest since Reardon. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

[reply]

" 9–1 and 10–4 before Hawkins fought back to within one frame at 9–10." - i think it should be 10-9 to match the other numbers.

Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- "fought back" - suggest rewording for neturality.

reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

[reply]

McManus's and Fu's match source doesn't mention the 10–4 score, only 9-1, 10-9 and 13-4.

reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- It also doesn't state it was Fu's second semi-final since 2006 nor Hawkin's missed the opportunity to reach his fourth consecutive semi-finals.

added a cite

I see that it's mentioned in the previous paragraph that Fu made it to his first quarterfinal since 2006. And since this paragraph is mentioning that he also made it to his first semi-final since 2006, I think the quarterfinal one should be dropped. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Fu eventually won by 13–11" -> Fu won 13-11 (evenutally doesn't sound right though it's not on the words to watch list).

done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

[reply]

"Hawkins' defeat denied him" - denied seems a bit strong. Reword? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

[reply]

Semi-finals

Junhui & McManus

I should note that the snooker.org sources don't mention the dates with that specific link but the results do. Should be 30 April - 1 May. I've only discovered this now, and the rest of the similarly worded sentences in the other rounds are effected too. See the below overall comment.
- I fixed in the last section Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In the first" -> in the first match
- don't see how this is helpful. Implying from the previous sentence it is the first semi-final. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Y[reply]
"In the first, Ding Junhui was leading Alan McManus 5–0 and 9–3 scoring five centuries in nine frames for Ding, before McManus fought back with three centuries of his own to trail 8–9." long sentence i suggest splitting into two.
- reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- I think the first half of this sentence needs to be reworded. Something like "Ding Junhui was leading Alan McManus 5–0 and 9–3 while scoring five centuries in the first nine frames." or "Ding Junhui scored five centuries in nine frames to lead over Alan McManus 9–3." I think the centuries part would need to go before the breaks to make sense as the 9-3 and five centuries in nine frames are redundant. Unless you want to say during these nine frames, he scored five centuries and led 9-3.
- yeah, I reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- "before McManus fought back with three centuries of his own to trail 8–9." - fought back again doesn't sound neutral. How about scored?
  - Way ahead of you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
"Ding then pulled away to lead 12–8, and finally won 17–11 to reach his first World Championship final." pulled away i'm not sure if that's neutral. How about increased his lead? I also suggest dropping finally.
- - done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- Finally, most of these scores are not mentioned in the China's Ding into First World Final source (only the final result 17–11) nor mention that Ding had scored five centuries in nine frames.
  - done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think either the centuries parts need to be put before the win (specifically Ding's sixth and seventh century).
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think mentioning his sixth century is needed as there's more emphasis on the seventh century and record breaking. But I do see he attempted a maximum break and failed.
  - A maximum is the important part here. Even in 2019 when they get scored quite a bit, one at the World Championships would be a massive deal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The sixth centuries record doesn't specify he missed the 15th black, just that he mistakenly sunk the 15th red and missed his opportunity to get the maximum break,
  - Yeah, but to get a maximum, he'd have to have played the black next, and there are only 15 reds (and blacks) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In the 27th frame, Ding made his seventh century of the match to set a new record for the most centuries made by a player in a World Championship match, beating the previous record of six centuries set by Joe Davis in 1946, Mark Selby in 2011, and Ronnie O'Sullivan in 2013." very long sentence. Two sentences would help for readability.
- split Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Source doesn't say the seventh century came in the 27th frame.
  - Sourced Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The snooker.org does have Ding's seventh century, but doesn't state it was a new record.--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It also doesn't mention the previous record (it's persumed) and the years Selby and Sullivan held the record.
  - Not sure how I would source that, other than give a source from each of those matches Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Outside of that it skips Joe Davis completely as the source talks about Crucible centuries only.
Ding Junhui's semi-final win source doesn't talk about most cenutries in any snooker match, nor mention Hendry's six centuries at the 1994 UK Championship. New source needed.
- This part is partially not confirmed. Yes it mentioned Ding beat the record set by O'Sullivan and Hendry but doesn't mention which match it was. An additional/new source would be needed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same source as above doesn't say the ten combined centuries broke the 1999 record with Hendry and O'Sullivan.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see you added a 2019 source that said it was a record back in 2016. Works for me. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]

Selby & Fu

"but Marco Fu fought back" - reword for neutrality and words to watch
- removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
Source needed for the 3–0 and 5–3 for first session and t 8–8 for second session.
- sourced Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The source you added would need to be moved to the end of the sentence to back up the 8-8 part (it does verify the 3-0 and 5-3 parts). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The cue tip breaking source doesn't seem to suggest when, how it happened nor that a ten minute break was needed. The video doesn't play for me in Canada so I can't confirm.
- Yeah, the vid actually has John Virgo comment about the break. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you possibly add another source/or switch the source so I can 100% confirm it? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"level at" - this doesn't seem like the right phrase as google says it means accusing, but i know you mean tieing or equalling.
- It's a Brit-eng expression. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Works for me per this definition. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Y[reply]
" Frame 24, won by Selby to level at 12–12, lasted 76 minutes 11 seconds, the longest frame ever played at the Crucible, breaking the previous record of 74 minutes 58 seconds set in the 2009 match between Stephen Maguire and Mark King" - two senteces needed for grammar.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The Selby & Fu video doesn't play for me (Canada issue) so I can't confirm whether it talks about how this record breaking match passed the 2009 match with Maguire & King. (but it's mentioned in the adjacent ref)
  - Yeah, the vid does mention it on commentary, the ref next to it will do the job. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you bundle the two sources? Only cause the text in the video ref that's not playable for me doesn't say the 2009 match. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The frames were shared" - not sure what you mean. Do you mean the lead was back and forth between them before the match was tied again at 15-15? I don't know if the source is clear enough to state that.
- Shared means they both won two if four frames were shared 2-2. I've reworded for clarityBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]

Final

"The Chinese player also became the first Asian finalist,[58] being broadcast on CCTV-5.[62]" - I assume this was supposed to be two sentences?
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- ""The Chinese player also became the first Asian finalist" - Wording sound off. How about rewording this to make it clear who the Chinese player is.
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- "being broadcast on CCTV-5." - I'm not seeing the relevance of this partial sentence.
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
  - "with the event broadcast on CCTV-5 in China" - seems out of scope, as it talks about Ding then the final. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "first qualifier to contest the final since Judd Trump was beaten by John Higgins in 2011" - word for word copy. Even if you slightly reworded this, then I think it'd satisfy WP:LIMITED cause there's not much phrasing you can do here.
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Side note, what do you mean Ding contested the final? I don't see him objecting to proceeding to the final.
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Ding won five of the next six frames to trail by only one frame at 7–8" - shouldn't it be five of the next seven frames as the first session ended at 6-2?. Selby won the first frame of session 2, (7-2) then Ding won the next three (7-5), then Ding won two of out of the next three (8-7).
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Selby's and Ding's final day one isn't clear that in the first session, the scores were 6-0 then 6-2. Yes, it says Ding won frames 7 and 8, but isn't clear enough (to me) that Selby won frames 1 - 6. Maybe add an extra source to this part?
  - If it's 6-0, Selby MUST have won the first 6. WP:CALC is plenty here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Some frames involved lengthy tactical battles" - tactical is a creative word used by the same source, and the only "tactical" mentioned frame was the final frame. So this isn't accurate.
"Ding again fought back" - same issue with fought back not being netural.
"On the second day of the final, Ding again fought back to trailing by only one frame at 10–11," - I don;t see a mention of this particular score in a specific part of the match in the source.
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "but Selby won three of the session's last four frames to go into the final session 14–11 ahead." - i recommend dropping/rewording "but" per editorializing,
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping from 14-11 to 16-11 without mentioning that Selby won two additional rounds before Ding won three more is an odd omission. The second crown source doesn't really say Selby won frame 26 and 27 though.
- reworded and added source Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Although Ding won three more frames in the evening session – coming from 16–11 behind to 16–14 – Selby eventually clinched the match " - words to watch editoralzing "although" ("eventually" i'd recoomend changing too).
- - Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the entire sentence should be broken into two sentences cause it's long (from Although Ding to £330,000 prize).
  - Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"he match ended just minutes after Selby's home city of Leicester celebrated Leicester City F.C.'s first ever Premier League title win." - while it's an interesting trivia fact, seems out of scope and not relevant to the match.
- Well, considering it covered a massive amount of the television broadcast, as well as the post-match conferences it's quite apt. For reference, Leicester were 5,000-1 outsiders to win the title, Selby later mentioned that he was actually annoyed that he missed the game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any particular reason why the audience figures for the finals is only mentioned and not the overall audience for the entire event? It might not be suitable noting here in the final, but elsewhere i think would be useful. Just an extra comment.
- I don't have a source for the event as a whole. The reason for the final coverage is to show how many fans they were shown to in Asia, considering the previous record for the final was in 1985 at 18.5m. I don't have a source commenting on this, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall comment for the main rounds

I've just noticed that according to snooker.org, the dates are off. Round 1 ended on 22 April, round 2 started on 22 April, semi finals were from 30 April - 1 May, and the final was 2 May. For semi-finals and finals, the seesions are mentioned but not the best of frame matches. As for Round 1 to Quarter finals, there isn't any sessions amounts nor best of frame matches. See here --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The best-of-X-frames deal is a CALC thing, as a best-of-19-frames match is a first to 10. So, those fit quite easily. FWIW, this source "Snooker World Championships 2016: Prize money, results, schedule, draw". Evening Standard. Retrieved 16 September 2019. also covers this. The dates I've sourced to here: worldsnooker.com http://www.worldsnooker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Click-here-for-the-Crucible-format1.pdf. Retrieved 16 September 2019. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I hope that covers it all.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The dates are still off. See here. Also, why this ref say it's Norweigan when it's not? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prize fund

Need a source to show that 2015's prize fund was £1,364,000.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 2015 source doesn't seem to add up to £1,364,000. How was this calculated? I only see £562,000 (adding each square once). --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's been different opinions on whether Bleacher Report is reliable per searching Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'm not sure where it falls with cue sports though. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering it simply sources back to world snooker (says "source:worldsnooker.com"), it's pretty safe. The reason the money is so far off, is because there are two losing semi-finalists, four losing quarter-finalists, etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- World Snooker's prize amounts also doesn't show one for Non-televised highest break, Televised highest break and Maximum break. Sources needed.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see a source that has these three prize amounts. The sources only go up to Last 80. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've fixed the sourcing here Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is the maximum break not part of the prize fund and instead a bonus? If so, I think it'd have to be clarified it's not part of it. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a prize that only gets given if someone makes a maximum break (like a hole in one in golf, or a 300 in bowling). Considering it didn't happen, it's a little irrelevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Main draw

Amy particular reason why some parts are cited and some aren't? I'm guessing the first round - semi finals don't need to as they're (presumably) sourced in the above paragraphs. Then why not the specific statistics for the finals? i.e sessions, Highest break, Average frame time etc.
- It should have been cited at the top, but I missed it. Everything apart from the times is sourced to the snooker.org article. I hate the times (it's irrelevent) and I'll probably remove. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
I think a source should be added to prove who the top 16 seeds were. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The source for snooker.org has the rankings. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Sport source for the final checks out except for the fourth session: it should be 0-103 (103), 74-0 (74). The 11–59 part doesn't exist which would make it 6 out of 10 frames. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Source is wrong (as much as the BBC are usually on it). The other source given is correct (it would have to be, otherwise Selby would still need another frame to win!) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why the 60 is 60–67 (Ding 60) is bold for Ding if Shelby won that frame in session four. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The scores in brackets are breaks over 50 (I should probably explain that.) You can make a 50+, and still not win the frame (as there are 147 points in each frame (+ any penalty points). I think someone once made an 85 break and still lost the frame... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying

First paragraph of this section are unreferenced.
- Now referenced Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also needs citations for Round 1 - 3 results.
  - Added a source. It covers all three rounds. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
Any particular reason why the names are sometimes switched in the article when compared to the snooker.org source for the qualification results? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only assume we put the lowest seed on the left (that's how we usually do this), and the snooker.org website does it by bracket. Shouldn't make a difference, as the side is irrelvent (there's no home/away dynamic in snooker). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. I was more concerned if they were accurate. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC) Y[reply]
"tour players outside the top 16, Q School top ups and WPBSA invites." word for word copy. I suggest rewording it to pass WP:LIMITED.
- reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it possible to reword it a bit more? The WPSBA part is fine, but the top 16 and top ups i think need a bit more work. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
"The 16 invited qualifiers were made up of 7 players, who won or were runner-up in important events together with 9 players invited based on the EBSA Order of Merit, but limited to one player per country." - long sentence that I'd suggest breaking up into two sentences.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't it be that the EBSA did the inviting, not the Order of Merit? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- "important events" sounds puffery. I suggest summarizing as the specific events are listed underneath.
  - Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've also done the regular flag fix here Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - So the flags are okay for the rounds but not suitable for centuries? I think I did read somewhere where this was flagged (pun intended) ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, it's a mess. Realistically, the flags are cruft, but the argument is that in the main draw, the flags feature as a visual identification of the competition being worldwide, as they are "representing a nation". However, the century list isn't really a national thing. It's something you do whilst playing (and, your flag has already been mentioned above). So, we remove the flag from century lists, and other lists such as this, but retain in the infobox and main draw.

- - - - In addition, MOS:FLAG and MOS:ACCESS means we should have extra information for flags on the first instance. This means I now use {{flagathlete}} rather than {{flagicon}} in the first instance of each flag. For consistency and my own sanity, I simply do this for the infobox, the first round of the draw, and the qualifying first draw. Anything more is a bit overkill, but doing it only on the first instance of a flag (like we do for wikilinks) would look silly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As none of the those MOS apply to the GA Y, I was just curious. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Century breaks

Televised stage centuries

The World Snooker Data source cited is missing centuries from 1-2 May. As the current cited source is the 30 April version, it'd need to be switched to the 4 May one.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it doesn't state the number of televised century breaks was the same amount as 2015, it only has the centuries that was made in 2016. Source needed.
  - added a source. WP:CALC covers the comparison. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source you added only has 29 breaks, nowhere close to the 86 breaks of 2015. Again, you would need the 5 May version to show all of them. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Few minor nitpicks with the Belfred donation source by World Snooker: 1) it doesn't specify the championship was seventeen days long. 2) Bluebell Wood Children's Hospice isn't cited as an official charity of World Snooker. It's called a "local charity" by Belfred's leader Fred Done.
- Seventeen days long is a calc thing sourced elsewhere. I have reworded the bit about it being the official charity Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. I'll leave the 17 days part be. The reworded for the charity works Y --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "was due to donate" -> donated (as £200 donations had been made before the £25,000 roundup).
  - Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, in line with the sponsor's declaration," - I recommend dropping "however" per WP:EDITORIALIZING.
  - Good point! Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Another instance of "however" in "However the donation was rounded up" part. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "as at least 70 centuries were achieved." - maybe reword to say they donated £25,000 cause their goal of 70 centuries was made. "at least" sounds vague.
  - Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"were achieved" -> "was achieved" per previous change --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"which is the second highest total in Crucible history," - seems redundant and side comment after "one short of the record of 16 set by Stephen Hendry in 2002". However, if you believe it's needed, then I suggest making this past tense (with a comma after centuries) as this was the 2016 event.
- removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- BBC Sport doesn't specifically say his fifteen tournament series made him second overall. The source said "His 15 tournament centuries was only one short of Stephen Hendry's all-time record."
  - as per above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]
- As quoted above, BBC Sport doesn't have the year of Hendry's centuries record, nor state that it was a Crucible record. Source(s) needed.
  - Source added. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Y[reply]

Qualifying stage centuries

Same problem as above section. The cited version of the World Snooker Data source is missing centuries from 9 April onwards, but there is an archived version of the website on 16 April.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other notes:

Throughout the article, Gilbert is mentioned as David Gilbert and Dave Gilbert. I think this should be all switched to David to match the article name. Same with switching Akani Songsermsawad to Sunny Akani.
- Done for Gilbert. Akani's is correct, as this is the name he uses on tour. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Then I suggest switching them both to the name he uses on tour and not have both versions i.e Round 1 qualifiying naming versus Qualifying stage centuries naming. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are some referenceing issues in red that need to be adjusted. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:

I'll look over the tournament summary/lead afterwards. But so far, there is a words to watch instance, grammar issues, unreferenced and OR citations. Once the other sections have been checked, I'll recheck if I need to add anymore to this part. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this. All looks pretty straightforward, I'll work my way through it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Here's a list of leftover points that need to be discussed/worked on (not including lead/seeding rounds as they are going to be reviewed last):

Tournament summary: Annual / official championship since 1927, founded and originated by players in the UK, played by Commonwealth nations, 32 players joined the main draw based on rankings and qualifying rounds

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Once i'll address the comments made from first round to finals, the to-do list will be updated. But from what I've reviewed: there are some grammar issues, OR/unreferenced sentences, words to watch issues, neutrality issues and one instance of an out of scope part. As you've worked on this review while I was completing it, I'm willing to place this review on hold for a week. After a week, I'll reassess whether to keep this on hold or not. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think I've got all of the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the paragraphs above, here's the remaining parts:

Lead : sourcing of 2015/2016's last ranking event, source duplication of global audience figures (minor point), Crucible curse reordering. Junhui and McManus's records (new one as of today).
- The last ranking event is sourced in Tournament summary. I have moved the curse part. I have fixed the records in lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once a section has been done, I'll collapse it for readability. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As this article has been held for a week, I'm making a recap of what's left to be done and seeing whether having an extended hold would be useful. Based on the amount of editing that has happened while I was reviewing and the week it was on hold, I feel that this article is almost there, and is in need of a bit more work. I'm making a recap of what's left to be done, and deciding from there. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second glance

Since this review is getting way too long, I'll tick through the above ones, collapse the entire review once done, and move any outstanding comments in this section:

In progress (will finish up on the 20th)

Tournament summary

Need a new source that says this was the tenth and final event of 2016. The current source is pointing to 2019.

Seeding and qualifying rounds

First round

Second round

Quarterfinals

Need a source that says the highest break in the tournmaent was specifically made in the 20th frame by Wilson.
- Accompanying centuries source is pointing to the 2015 event, not 2016.
"and reach his first Crucible semi-final" -> and reached.
I don't thinking mentioning it was Fu's quarter final in a decade is needed as the following paragraph talks about Fu's first semi-final in a decade. I think only one is needed, not both.

Semi-finals

Ding’s seventh century new record source needed
O’Sullivan and Hendry’s six centuries at 1994 UK championship source needed
Move source to end of sentence for Selby & Fu 3-0, 5-3, 8-8 for first 2 sessions.
Cue break in the 15th frame with a ten minute break source needed.
Bundle sources to verify Selby & Fu longest frame passed Maguire & King’s 2009 record.

Finals

Overall issues:

Naming for Akani Songsermsawad or Sunny Akani should be consistent in my opinion.

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your dilligent review MrLinkinPark333, I'm going to withdraw this nomination. You have been great, but I feel this is going a bit beyond the GAN process. It's clearly taking too long! Thank you for your time and patience. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.