Talk:2018 World Snooker Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2018 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.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 7, 2019Good article nomineeListed
May 22, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 24, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 8, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

Edit warring[edit]

Can all users who have been/are currently involved in edit warring please discuss their differences HERE before continuing to add/remove content? Andygray110 (talk)

Despite the hilarity, can we lock this page or something? I have a feeling they won't stop. (My two cents on the matter, I think we only really care about the position of the top players which snooker decides as the top 16, i.e. the seeds. But I don't care either way, trivial issue.) Vlord1994 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with you, only seeded players should be shown in the seeding section. There is no reason to show a changes in rankings for 49th or 64th players. No need to show 19th and 20th rankings when 17th and 18th will be omitted. 46.211.109.142 (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "problem" is, that this a new section. It is only found in the pages regarding the (2018) World Grand Prix and the (2018) Players Championship, where the whole field is shown. Though, all of the players in those tournaments are of course seeded. But when you are participating in the WC – or any other snooker tournament for that matter – when the draw has been made, you are participating on the same conditions wether you are seeded or not. And there is no point showing this table for only half of the main field. 14:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The different cases, When all 32 players were seeded with their numbers (and all qualified by rating) then all 32 players were shown in the seeding list. But here, only 16 were seeded. Compare to 2018 French Open – Men's Singles. 46.211.109.142 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem regarding the user, 46.211.109.142 however, is that he/she has been publishing my twitter credentials in a wikipedia-editing-note, and that he/she should be banned for this, of course. mrloop (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to admins, 185.136.116.183 is ip of Kirk Larsen from Denmark. Block him please. 46.211.109.142 (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay on topic and discuss the 2018 World Snooker Championship. How tennis articles are laid out has no bearing on snooker, they are two completely different sports. Where someone is from is irrelevant also. If someone is logging out and editing as an IP user this will be easily spotted by an admin/checkuser. Page protection has also been requested. Andygray110 (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please bring some argumentation, why you think I should be blocked? I'm not the one publishing information about you. And I'm not the one, who doesn't even care to log in to an account. Btw; I don't know why my name is showing as mrloop here. Maybe that was my original user name. But I am Thomas Kirk Larsen as well. mrloop (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Main Field" section does not add anything to the page. It seems like statistics for the sake of it, and it duplicates the information that can be seen in the main draw brackets below. If you want to add this section in, then I suggest you go through all of the previous years results and add it into those also so it is consistent and also be prepared to update it on every future tournament page going forwards as well. "Event status" - whats the point, we can see it from the brackets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.155.104 (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Seeding" section doesn't bring anything, that the Main Field section isn't bringing as well. It only brings redundancy, and there is no reason showing only half of the main field. There is two viable options: Include the whole main field or remove the whole table. That's my view and my two cents. mrloop (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the table doesn’t add anything and is redundant to the later Main Draw section. It should be deleted entirely. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree also as per WP:NOTSTATS. Andygray110 (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include the seeded players only to show the ranking changes and their status in the tournament (like in all tennis articles). Try to apply the WP:NOTSTATS to ranking articles like Snooker world ranking points 2017/2018 first. Note, the seeding sections are used in all football / tennis / other sports articles. 46.211.121.120 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It’s appropriate in an article specifically on world rankings but not here. Other sports articles are not relevant to this discussion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not? 16 seeded players in snooker and 16/32 seeded players in tennis is an absolutely related tournament format. One-two weeks tournaments and knockout format in both cases are relevant cases be sure. 46.211.157.102 (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr./MS./Mrs. 46.211.121.120; You are welcome to depict a list of the seeded players. Though it is redundant, as seedings are explained in the "Tournament summary" section and are shown in the brackets of the "Main draw" section. If you want to show how players progress through the tournament, though, you do it for the whole main field. Not half of it. mrloop (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't spend anymore time on this retard. Others will have to do it. And now he is bringing my twitter-credentials and whereabouts into this again. Earlier on he was "threatening" me with showing up here. I don't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia, but I find it mind boggling, that such behavior is being allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk • contribs)

  • Admins, please block Kirk Larsen for such words as "retard". 46.211.157.102 (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore he has been "threatening" me to show up, where I live. Am I out of line, responding by calling him a retard? I think not. mrloop (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As there is consistent edit warring, a discussion has been opened at the admin edit warring noticeboard. Andygray110 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have full-protected the article for 24 hours to stop everyone here reverting each other. Everyone go and read staying cool when the editing gets hot, calm down, take a deep breath, and resume discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr./Ms./Mrs. 46.211.121.120; thank you for the following comment attached to your latest edit of the page, before it was quarantined: »You personal opinion is not a consensus«. You comment really brought a smile to my face. One single person on this talk page agreed with something you said, and ten seconds later, you stated it as a consensus. Now a couple of people agree, that the section in question should be removed. But according to you, that's just my personal opinion – not a consensus. Really; from the bottom of my heart – thank you for making me laugh. mrloop (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • What value does the section bring? Why does the reader need to know every player’s “Event Status” when that can already be seen in the draw section? Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct question. Such sections help readers better understand the tournament situation for top players (out of play, or advanced to next stage) and show the ranking changes (for example, who will be the first-second-third in rankings after the tournament). Not so easy to find the favourite player quickly in high brackets or long ranking tables. It's an useful practice in all sports articles. If you don't like tennis, see the Formula One's 2018 Chinese Grand Prix#Championship standings after the race. It is more useful section then really redundant "Whitewashes" of "Final frame deciders". 46.211.158.165 (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said Pawnkingthree. This section can go completely. This is not a stats site. Detailed stuff about rankings/points and the like should either not be on wikipedia at all or it should be hidden away on a less important page. It's like the business of frame by frame scores. They shouldn't happen. When the match is over add the score. This is an encyclopedia maintaining interesting/useful stuff for posterity. As to where someone lives, that is not relevant. This is written in the English language. No one gets priority whether this native language is English or not. Nigej (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the endless updating of matches in progress are meaningless in an encyclopedia. But some editors mistake the pages for sportsites. I don’t mind, though, as I don’t really see a problem in that. mrloop (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you say, it's no big deal. But it is perhaps an indication that some folk are misunderstanding what wikipedia is about. Results are good, Something like "representation by country" is perhaps interesting, but not a core aspect of the page.
  • I have contributed to "Seeding list" sections on pages such as 2018 World Grand Prix in the past. I believe this section has its merit, but only prior to the announcement of the actual draw. For example, see this revision from 2 months before the start of the tournament. The section explains how a player can qualify and which players are on their way to doing so. This specific information is not available elsewhere on Wikipedia, not even in the "ranking points" articles, because they don't show provisional ranking points for future cut-off points. Also, as you can see, the provisional seedings in this old revision are properly referenced. So, before a final seeding list or draw is announced, I believe there is enough reason to keep this section in existence for tournaments that use ranking points to determine who can enter, i.e. the Masters, the World Grand Prix, Players Championship and World Championship. However, as soon as the official draw is announced, the section has no more value and can be removed. Per89 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Mr./Ms./Mrs. 46.211.121.120 from Kiev (I don’t know why you find our whereabouts important, but that’s okay). I have already told you, that you are welcome to make a list of seeded players. I find it redundant, but I don’t mind. However, if you want a section depicting the progress of players in the main field, you do so for the whole main field. Not half of it. I have given you two options: Keep the list with all the 32 main field participants or drop the list altogether. Personally I’m in favor of the latter, but you insist on a third option – depicting half of the field and ignoring the other half. That is not an acceptable solution. Yes I have drawn your attention to the 2018 World Grand Prix and 2018 Players Championship, but you failed to respond. Just as you have failed to respond to anything, but insist on repeating your unsupported personal opinions. As I have already told you, the lists on the two tournament pages in question depict all participants. Just as such a list should do at the World Championship, if you insist on its presence in the first place. I realize of course, that you find it difficult to dissect my words – or that you pretend to find it difficult, anyway. But it really shouldn’t be that hard. Instead of endless repetitions, for once try responding to my words. Your dishonest form of communication makes me assume that you can’t bring any argumentation to the table. mrloop (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One correction only. The lists on the two tournament pages in question depict all seeded participants. And both are named "seeding list". And LOL, your words such as "retard" (see above) is a very "honest form of communication". 46.211.108.39 (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do know, that all the players in the two tournaments, I directed your attention to, are seeded, right? If you are able to answer yes here, I might begin calling you "genius" instead. It is your endless circle-argumentation and misrepresentations, that are dishonest, my friend. mrloop (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter, all players were seeded or not. Such seeding sections in sports articles were made for seeded players only (tennis, table tennis, badminton etc), but not for all players of tournament. 46.211.120.25 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The set of all seeded players is equal to the set of all players, when all players are seeded. Are you able to recognize that much? Since you haven’t brought a single piece of argumentation to support your personal opinion, it might make some sense to ask you directly.. Why do you find it helpful to have a section, that depicts the progress of seeded players in the tournament, while ignoring the other half of the main field? mrloop (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very simply. When seeded players are equal to all players then seeded (all) players should be shown. When seeded players are not equal to all players then also seeded (not all) players should be shown. There is no reason to show the 98th and 129th-ranking players in a top section. Table is a helpful for readers (see argumentation above in bold). Repeatedly, such sections help readers better understand the tournament situation for top players (out of play, or advanced to next stage) and show the ranking changes (for example, who will be the first-second-third in rankings after the tournament). There are no arguments against, as of now. 46.211.26.223 (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you find it helpful on the page for the World Snooker Championship to have a section and table, that depicts the progress of half of the main field, while ignoring the other half. I think you should stick to the tennis pages, you refer to a lot, my friend. Just an honest recommendation mrloop (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section is not helpful to readers and putting it in bold does not change this. It is a duplication of the information already shown in the Main Draw section. Rankings only change after a cut off and this information is already included in the main ranking points article Snooker_world_ranking_points_2017/2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.155.104 (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. (and apologizing, I didn't know how to correspond my signature with my username until now) ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (mrloop) (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Let's get rid of the "Seeding" section completely. Nigej (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree --QBear (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree — Arguably the most important aspect of the post-wc rankings is tour survival as far as the players are concerned (i.e. who is in the top 64 and who is outside it) and anybody interested can look up the points article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - P.S thanks for everybody's hard work on this and other snooker related wiki pages - they are excellent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.214.82.27 (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree — No need to state one and the same thing a hundred times. That's why revisions are made/calculated. Otherwise, they would be useless. NuclearMissile (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Section indeed has no value once the main draw (or seeding list) is published. Therefore it can be removed in the current version of the article. However, I would like to note that the section does have value when seedings are not final yet. Please look for my other comment on this page (same timestamp) for my reasoning. Per89 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - However, as a general point of principle, we shouldn't normally be adding sections we know we're going to delete later. This is an encylcopedia preserving stuff for posterity. Nigej (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I agree, but I would emphasize the word "normally". In this case, we would only be deleting the section because the information contained within it will still be preserved, but shown in a different way (i.e. the final tournament bracket instead of a provisional list). While the seeding list is still provisional, it does have encyclopaedic value (just like any ranking of any ongoing sports event, from the snooker world rankings to the Formula One World Championship, just to name a few). Removing the section once the seeds are final, but listing the seeds in the tournament bracket instead, would be a graphical change more than anything else. Per89 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Representation by Country section[edit]

Seems an opportune time to see what people think of the "2018 World Snooker Championship#Representation by country" section. As well as here, we have a similar section in 2016 International Championship, 2016 English Open (snooker), 2016 Northern Ireland Open (called Representation from different countries), 2017 Scottish Open (snooker) and 2018 Welsh Open (snooker). Last year we had a 2017 World Snooker Championship#Nations represented at the Crucible. Otherwise we don't have such a section (correct me if I'm wrong). Personally I'm not a great fan of the idea. Players don't "represent" a country in these events. Some sports use similar tables a lot (eg Darts, also eg 2017 Open Championship#Nationalities in the field) and others not at all (can't find anything at 2017 Wimbledon Championships for instance). Perhaps worth noting that we have various sections, like List of world snooker champions#Champions by country (modern era), Masters (snooker)#Champions by country, Maximum break#Statistics which also contain summaries by country. (I know that similar issues come up with the use of flagicons but that particular issue has been discussed countless times before. At least with the flags we are relatively consistent in our usage in the hundreds of tournaments covered) Nigej (talk) 07:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it either. Seems like more unnecessary trivia.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like it for the World Championships, because it provides a nice overview of the distribution of players across the World. And if it is continued for the WC's, it will provide an overview of the degree of international development in snooker. But that's just my two cents. I guess, it's all in the eye of the beholder. I'm not a big fan of the "Whitewashes" and "Final frame deciders" sections, however. I don't see their relevance. The same goes for the rest of the "Players' statistics" section. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashes/Final Frame Deciders[edit]

The stats section is growing to a ridiculous size. This is not a stats site. I propose that we remove the Whitewashes and Final Frame Decider sections. There are simply a rehash of earlier information and of very little interest. Nigej (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The players statistics section should be removed entirely. It's pointless trivia. If it's important, it can be written elsewhere in prose. These articles tend to be mostly statistics, whereas they should be mostly prose and description (and other information from the event), with statistics backing it up. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts on the issue are stated in my comment above. Under the "Representation by Country section". I'm not a big fan of the "Whitewashes" and "Final frame deciders" sections. I don't see their relevance. The same goes for the rest of the "Players' statistics" section. However, I like the Representation by Country section for the World Championships, because it provides a nice overview of the distribution of players across the World. And if it is continued for the WC's, it will provide an overview of the degree of international development in snooker. But that's just my two cents. I guess, it's all in the eye of the beholder.~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issues?[edit]

Anyone know what the technical issues with the draw were? "World number 22 Perry called it "an absolute joke" as qualifiers like himself "have no idea when we are playing, have to book hotels and make travel plans". (https://www.bbc.com/sport/snooker/43814793) Being impartial I couldn't possibly comment. Nigej (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Report what the sources say. Technical issues could be anything, I'd use the source to prove that players were annoyed by the issues, but nothing else. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reception?[edit]

I don't think the comments about the draw warrant a separate section on this page. If the info should be included at all, I think it should be placed in the tournament summary section instead. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Perhaps in the section where the qualification/qualifiers are discussed. Nigej (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would completely ruin the flow of the article. The idea would be for the reception section to be fleshed out with more information as the tournament moves along. Going on a tangent in the tournament summary is not a great idea. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it to the end of the article. That helps. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. That's where it should be. Thanks Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on whether it ever will be fleshed out. There's nothing similar in previous years I think. Nigej (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, regular event articles on Wikipedia have places for this. I was looking to flesh out these things on earlier tournaments as well. The reception section of most articles is one of the most important. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the reception section might be the most unimportant in this article. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A "reception" section containing events and quotes from before the event even started, and listing it under "aftermath", that makes no sense at all to me. I say remove the reception section. If there is actual useful content for it in the future, it can always be brought back to life. Per89 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it needs a new title, having looked at it. I changed it to "event information", but I'm not sure it's much better. Our jobs is to cover the event as a whole, so anything that gets covered by reliable sources, we should also at least mention. There's been a lot of controversies, that should be mentioned on the page. I'm up for discussing where this information should go, but it shouldn't be swept under the rug. I wanted to add a bit of information on the playing surface, as I know table 1 is playing a bit odd, but no ones really mentioned it in the media.
I'd say that the reactions from players when they leave should always be mentioned on the world championship events, with Bingham stating he's taking time off being something worth commenting on. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GA[edit]

I have placed the article for WP:Copy edit, and has now been completed by Twofingered Typist (who did a fantastic job, as always). Would anyone be against me placing the article for a potential GA nomination? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2018 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sportsfan77777 (talk · contribs) 22:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time Sportsfan77777 - Let me know what I can do to help. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates, Sportsfan77777. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, Lee Vilenski. I will probably get to it by Sunday. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No rush Sportsfan77777, just wanted to check everything was ok. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my first set of comments:

Lead[edit]

  • Good.

Qualifying rounds[edit]

  • The top 16 seeds automatically qualified for the last 32 positions at the 2018 World Snooker Championship. Defending champion Mark Selby was seeded 1, while other seedings were allocated based on the latest world rankings (revision 10). <<<=== This description seems a little off. I would expect "players" to qualify for positions with designated seeds, rather than saying the "seeds" qualify. How about something like: The top 16 players in the latest world rankings (revision 10) automatically qualified for the last 32 positions at the 2018 World Snooker Championship. The top seed was reserved for defending champion Mark Selby, while other seedings were allocated based on the rankings.
This makes total sense. I think that the difference between "seeds" and "world rankings" can get quite murred. The only issue we have, is that the top 16 world ranking players don't necessarily automatically qualify. It's the top 15, and the defending champion. Obviously, in this case, that is the same (as it usually is), but it's a small distinction. (For instance, Shaun Murphy was ranked outside of the top 16 in 2006, after he won the title in 2005. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the other players (from 17th place in ranking) started in the first round of qualifying and were required to win ===>>> All the other players (from 17th place in ranking) started in the first round of qualifying and needed to win
  • Matthew Stevens qualified ===>>> only Matthew Stevens qualified
  • The youngest participant in qualifying was Jackson Page at 16 years of age, while 55-year-old Jimmy White was the oldest participant. (Add "Neither player qualified.")
  • Liang came very close to becoming the first player making two maximums in the same match ====>>> Liang came very close to becoming the first player to make two maximums in the same match.
    • Changed to: "to score", whilst "making a maximum" is fine, scoring a maximum seems better wording. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liang also became the highest-ranked player not to feature in the tournament ===>> Liang was also the highest-ranked player not to feature in the main draw of the tournament.
  • Only seven of the 64 unseeded participants (players ranked outside the world's top 80) in qualifying made it through the first qualifying round. ===>>> Only seven of the 64 unseeded participants in qualifying (players ranked outside the world's top 80) made it through the first qualifying round.
  • In this section, you should add how players there are in qualifying as well as how many seeds. You should also add who is participating in the qualifying rounds. (I know it starts from world No. 17, but where does it end? Are the top 128 players outside the top 16 all automatically accepted into qualifying? Some of this info is already in the qualifying section, but it should go here.) These things should probably go in a new paragraph in-between the first and second.
    • this one is a bit more difficult. There are 128 players on the tour. The remaining 16 are generally wildcards, but I can't find any specific source that states this. I can add this information, but without a source, it's WP:OR, which I'd like to avoid. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a bit of information about this, and pointed readers to the section on qualifying, which is more in-depth on the matter. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • China's Lyu became the lowest ranked player to reach this World Championship's main stage. <<<=== What was Lyu's ranking?

1st round[edit]

  • Eight former world champions (including the defending champion) ===>>> Eight former world champions, including the defending champion Selby,
  • Mark Selby (three times – defending champion) <<<=== cut "defending champion" here to keep the standard format
  • Instead of "times" in the parentheses, use "titles"
  • The defending champion, Mark Selby, played in the opening match of the first round. <<<=== Just checking, there are no concurrent matches?
    • There are concurrent matches, (2 matches at a time until the semi-finals); but the defending champion is always denoted as having the first match Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ended his 10-match undefeated streak in the world championships and his 719-day reign as world champion. ===>>> This ended his 10-match undefeated streak in the world championship and his two-year reign as world champion.
  • O'Sullivan won his 1000th frame at the Crucible, the 16th frame of this encounter. ===>>> The 16th frame of the match was O'Sullivan's 1000th frame win at the Crucible.
  • In the 12th frame of the match, Stevens declared a foul on himself, after nudging the pink ball with his hand, allowing Wilson to win the frame. <<<=== Is it unusual for a player to declare a foul on themselves? (How many times did it happen in the entire tournament, or a typical tournament?)
    • it's not unusual per se. Snooker players are seemingly quite honest. However, it was important as it meant he would likely lose the frame and match due to it. It's not something you see a lot of at tournaments, as it's quite rare for players to actually play fouls, and even less so for the referee to not see the foul. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fu had recently had eye surgery to repair retinal degeneration and myodesopsia in his left eye.
  • Ali Carter defeated Graeme Dott 10–8 in his first round match, despite being three frames behind at 3–6 overnight. <<<=== What do you mean by overnight? Was the match played over two separate days?
    • That is correct! Matches in the world championships are best of 19 or over, and are played over two, three or four sessions. This often means that matches are played over two days (On rare occasions, a 2nd round matches can be played over three days.) Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Youngest player of the main stage, debutant Lyu Haotian, advanced to the second round ===>>> Debutant Lyu Haotian, the youngest player in the main draw, advanced to the second round
  • 2010 champion Neil Robertson was also defeated ===>>> The 2010 champion Neil Robertson was also defeated
  • Are the match results in some kind of order? I would suggest putting them in order of seeding, or chronological order (based on the order the matches actually took place). I would also suggest adding the seedings next to each of the seeds.
    • They are in chronological order, to an extent. doing this via seeding can get quite repetitive if the higher seeds make it to the final. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be mentioned somewhere (early) that the matches are best out of 19 frames.
    • Added The matches for the first round were played over two sessions, as best of 19-frames matches. to the first paragraph, seems like the most logical place. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2nd round[edit]

  • As with the first round, are these matches listed in a particular order? That should be clearer from the prose.
  • Current Masters champion, Mark Allen and Joe Perry, who defeated the defending world champion in the first round, shared the spoils through the first two sessions of their second round match. <<=== There should be parallelism in this sentence. Perhaps something like: "Mark Allen, the current Masters champion, and Joe Perry, who defeated the world champion in the first round, shared ... match." Though, it might be better to say: "The first match of the second round was between Mark Allen, the current Masters champion, and Joe Perry, who defeated the world champion in the first round." Then, describe the progression of the match. Also, "shared the spoils" is not encyclopedic enough.
 Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quarterfinals should either have a dash always or never. I think never is better.
 Done - I've edited all mentions in the prose. The sources still say quarter-final however. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the shot, he damaged the head of his cue tip. <<<=== Did this affect him in later rounds?
    • Not Really. It probably should have done; as generally a cue tip isn't replaced until it breaks. If I remember correctly, Kyren played with a broken tip for the remainder of the competition, which is unusual to say the least. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • after winning the first session of their match 8–0, scoring seven 50+ breaks. <<<=== If those seven 50+ breaks were in the first eight frames, it should say "after winning the first session of their match 8–0 while scoring seven 50+ breaks."
 Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judd Trump defeated Ricky Walden 13–9, with the score level at 8–8 after the first two sessions. ===>>> Judd Trump defeated Ricky Walden 13–9, taking the lead late after the score was level at 8–8 following the first two sessions.

Quarterfinals[edit]

  • Add that the sessions are played over two days.
  • Add that the first two sessions are played on the first day, while the final session is played on the second day.
  • The quarter-finalists were all top sixteen players, ===>>> The quarter-finalists were all seeded players,
    •  Done 11:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • with Masters Champion Mark Allen as the lowest ranked player left in the competition.[b] ===>> with Masters Champion Mark Allen being the lowest ranked player left in the competition at world number 16. (and get rid of the "note")
  • Three-time ranking event winner Barry Hawkins defeated 13-time ranking event winner Ding Junhui <<<=== Why do you describe the players with the number of ranking events they have won? It makes it sound like a big upset, but given these players have similar rankings (6 and 3), was that really the case?
    • It was an upset; but probably not for the amount of titles they have won. Ding has been considered on the cusp of winning the world title for around 15 years now; but only made one final. Barry Hawkins has always been a journeyman player; but until 6 years ago had never won a match at the world championships. Then, he suddenly became the most consistent player at the championships making one quarterfinal, 4 semifinals and a final in 6 years. I've removed the bit about ranking titles, as it is irrelevent Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrase the first sentence of the last paragraph to: "The closest match of the round was the final match between John Higgins and Judd Trump, a rematch of the 2011 final."
  • Trump won the next two frames taking a two frame lead at 11–9, before Higgins won the next three frames to take a lead at 11–12. ===>>> Trump won the next two frames to take a two frame lead at 11–9, before Higgins won the next three frames to take a lead at 11–12.

Semifinals[edit]

  • The semifinals were played over four sessions, with matches played as best of 33 frames in a single table setup. <<<=== What is a single table setup?
Simply that there is only one table being played on. Before this, there were two tables played; with a divider in between. This is common terminology for snooker events, but I could link to the Glossary of snooker terms, if required? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add that the round was played over three days.
  • Introduce the first match with "The first semifinal was between John Higgins and Kyren Wilson."
  • Introduce the second match with "The second semifinal was between Barry Hawkins and Mark Williams."

Final[edit]

  • Add "There were two sessions on each day of the match, one in the afternoon and another in the evening." <<=== or whatever the correct thing is
  • Higgins won the second mini-session 3–1 <<=== Is "mini-session" a real term?
    • Yeah. I don't really like the term, but it's quite common verbage in Snooker. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second session should go in the first paragraph, not the second.
  • Williams won the final frame of the afternoon, winning the session 5–3 and taking a 15–10 lead into the final session of the championship. ===>>> Williams won the session 5–3 after taking the last frame, giving him a 15–10 lead heading into the final session of the championship.
  • Higgins cleared to pull the score to 16–17. <<<=== Clarify what "cleared" means, or use "counter-clearance" again. Also, include the score of 65.

Prize fund[edit]

  • The footnotes on the highest break winners should be in the prose instead of in footnotes.

 Done Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main draw[edit]

  • Is this a standard way to format the box score for the final? Most (all?) of the information for the sessions is on both the left side and right side of the chart.
  • Would a better way be something like:
Frame 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Players Session 1: Higgins (3) – Williams (5)
Higgins 23 15 35 60 120 (119) 0 98 (52) 82 (59) N/A
Williams 75 65 72 70 (55) 4 133 (95) 0 21 N/A
Players Session 2: Higgins (4) [7] – Williams (5) [10]
Higgins
Williams
    • It's standard for by WP:SNOOKER. I'm ok with either, to be honest; but considering it's used on around 70 pages of world Snooker championships, we'd have to get a consensus that this is a better version. I'm ok with starting a conversation though. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying[edit]

  • 128 players competed in the qualifying competition. ===>>> There were 128 players in the qualifying competition.
    •  Done
  • As I mentioned above, I think most of this should be duplicated in the prose section on qualifying (some of it only needs to be mentioned once).
  • The list of amateurs should just be here.

Century breaks[edit]

  • I changed the archive dates and links to later dates. The lists on the new dates are complete for qualifying, but not for the main draw (only centuries before 30 April). Is this information listed anywhere else?
    • There's a few places I would generally go to get this information: https://snookerinfo.webs.com/2018-world-championship or https://cuetracker.com would be where I'd go. Sadly, both are blacklisted. The information is available in quite a few places; but sadly WP:SNOOKER is quite restrictive as to where the information is reliable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Representation[edit]

Media[edit]

  • The second paragraph should be the first paragraph. This is really the only thing related to media. Is there anything else that could go in this section, such as viewership numbers. Additionally, there is no discussion of media coverage outside the UK.
  • The first, third, and fourth paragraphs are controversies, not media coverage. This should go in a separate section.
  • The last paragraph can go in the prose under the "Final" section.

Overall[edit]

  • Is it convention to list a deficit as e.g. 4–10 instead of 10–4? That seems backwards to me, but I'm not familiar with snooker.
    • Generally, it's the same as in Tennis. The subject of the topic is the first one listed. You would say Shaun Murphy won the match 10–7, and Stephen Hendry was defeated 7–10 Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first two sub-sections of the tournament summary describing the qualifying and 1st rounds, the parts that explain who is in the tournament (and the qualifying tournament) as well as the seedings should be split off into a separate early section titled "Participants and seeding" or something like that.
  • What is the order you are listing the matches in the tournament summary section? At first glance, it looks like the order the matches actually took place, but that should be a little clearer from the prose.
    • As above, it's losely chronilogically. Some matches can start before another match, and also end before it. To specifically state that it's in chronilogical order is quite difficult; as some matches (games are played two at a time) can finish at the same time as others; and no reliable sources have start and end times for matches Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first time each seeded player is introduced in a match should include their world ranking (or alternatively, their seed).
    • I'm under the impression this was brought up before at WP:SNOOKER, and was against Consensus. I'm more than willing to check this out again however. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each round description should include the number of days over which the round was played as well as how the sessions were divided between those days.
  • All of the links work.
  • No plagiarism detected.
  • No bare refs.
  • No dab links.
  • Images seem fine.
    • all images are taken from WikiCommons.

@Lee Vilenski: Sorry this took so long; I've been busy in real life. The most major comments I have are in the "Overall" section. Everything else is minor, although there are a lot of minor comments, mostly related to the prose. In particular, there are places where details I thought were important are missing (like with the rankings, and the days/times the matches/sessions were played). I had intended to make this a little neater, but I don't want to delay the review any longer. Feel free to add comments/questions/etc. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through all of the above today. Don't worry about it, Sportsfan77777; I wasn't trying to rush you.[a] This all looks very fair, and thank you once again for the review. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan77777 - I've been through the article and made the changes above. There's only two or three points that I've contensted; mostly due to how other snooker events are laid out. Thank you for your time. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:08, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: As an update, I added an "Overview" section at the start that explains the format of the event (mostly just pulled from the tournament summary and qualifying sections). This section is intended to handle issues like... you can't say "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the last 32 positions at the 2018 World Snooker Championship" without first specifying that "the main draw features 32 players". I also split off information about who is competing into a "Notable participants" section. This is meant to have the tournament summary better focus on the matches and results.

I think the prose in the "Tournament summary" section still needs to be improved. Individual matches aren't introduced that well, and the broader context either isn't always provided or isn't structured well. This issue is the biggest in the first round, when there are a lot more matches to keep track of. For example, in the first round, it's not clear which players are seeded in each match. For the first round section in particular, I would recommend trying to solve this by sorting the matches first by separating the upsets (where the qualifiers won) from the ones where the seeded players won. Then within each of those two sections, I would suggest sub-sorting the matches chronologically.

I hope you don't mind I've been doing some general copyediting to this article to try to improve it further. I don't think this should interfere with the review. If there's anything else you want me to do to assist, please let me know. Merry Christmas. Rodney Baggins (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney Baggins - Feel free to address any issues you see, and help with the above! Sportsfan77777 - No problem. I'll tae a look at it now. Sorry about the delay - Christmas is here. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes to this section, as requested. I think it now reads a little better. The "upsets" are at the top; with seeded players listed (I haven't listed seedings for matches where the seed won, as this seems a little excessive.) It feels like it reads ok for a GA, but it could clearly be written slightly better. I think the main issue, is that with 16 matches, it will feel disjointed. I suppose the only way around this would be to catagorize these by seed, having upsets at the top, and list them by seed, and then how the higher seeds won their matches below this (similar to a reception section).
The only issue is that WP:SNOOKER/MOS is clear on not using terms of how hard/easy matches are; so there are a lot of X seed defeated Y by SCORE. It would be easier to say that the seed won convincingly, which is against MOS. Let me know what you think, and if I can do any more edits to help with the GA approval.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Here are a few more comments...

I think another issue with the "first round" section is that you don't need to go into that much detail for each of the matches. (Example 1: With "Walden defeated Luca Brecel (seed 13) 10–6; he was comfortably five frames ahead at 8–3, when Brecel won the next three frames to bring the score to 8–6, before Walden won the last two frames of the match." You could just say: "Walden defeated world number 13 Luca Brecel." If Walden started out ahead and ended up winning, do the scores midway through the match really matter?) (Example 2: "Reigning Masters champion Mark Allen defeated debutant Liam Highfield 10–5; neither player scored a century, but Highfield came close with two breaks of 99." Is it actually important that neither player scored a century in a random first round match?) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I would suggest removing some of the "distinctions" (e.g. introducing Bingham as 2015 World Champion Stuart Bingham) in the tournament summary prose are excessive. There are eight former world champions in the field, so if you introduce all of them as "20xx World Snooker Champion" or "20xx World Snooker Championship runner-up," no one really stands out. A few of the players do deserve that type of introduction (e.g. the defending champion and a many-time champion like O'Sullivan), but not close to half the field. In particular, I would suggest getting rid of the "distinctions" for "2015 World Snooker Champion" Stuart Bingham, "Two-time champion" Mark Williams, "2013 World Snooker Championship runner-up" Barry Hawkins, "2010 champion" Neil Robertson. Also, I could understand the reigning Masters champion being important, but does the reigning Masters finalist matter? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I might consider leaving some of the least important first round matches out altogether, and just stating who advanced out of those. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I tend to agree with everything you've said, especially as the first round section is so long. Cutting out many of the "distinctions" would make it a bit shorter! When I wrote that, I think I was erring on the side of caution for the sake of the GA review, and it's a good job I didn't publish my suggested changes in the main article. In the Allen/Highfield match, I think it is worth noting that Highfield scored two 99 breaks because this is quite a significant achievement and a memorable feature of that particular match, but I may be wrong. Lee should be able to throw more light on this... Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Yeah, I'm ok with removing the distinctions. They are really just flavour text. Having a match with no centuries at the world championships is really quite uncommon. 99 breaks are quite uncommon too. I quite like this as a moment to be honest. I'll make some changes to this.
I disagree that just stating who progressed, as we should mention who they defeated. If you mentioned both of these, we should also include the scores. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the first round section now has inconsistent seeding and qualifier tags. Which way do you want to go with this? Seeds 1, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are tagged but the other seeds aren't. Do you want all 16 seeds to be tagged with their seeding? Also the only qualifiers that are actually picked out as such are Jamie Jones, Ricky Walden and Jack Lisowski. The other non-debutant qualifiers (Joe Perry, Robert Milkins, Stephen Maguire, Stuart Carrington, Xiao Guodong, Jimmy Robertson, Ryan Day) are not called "qualifier" in the text. Do you want all qualifiers to be characterised as such, to distinguish them from the seeds, or none? We need to be consistent with this. By the way, Happy New Year! Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to talk about which players are qualifiers if they lose. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: I re-did the "first round" section so that it is sorted by (1) the two biggest upsets, (2) the other four upsets, (3) the three world champions who advanced, (4) the other three "exciting matches" (either come-from-behind or 10–9) where seeds won, and (5) the remaining four in chronological order. I left all of the details about how the matches progressed. Does that seem good? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. I may bring this up at WP:SNOOKER at a later date, so we have a policy to follow, but this is fine. Do you have any other issues with the GA nomination? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I passed the GA review. Thanks for sticking with it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the sorting, I think it depends on the specific tournament, the participants, and even the results. Here, chronological works for some of the later rounds in part because there are fewer matches (which makes it easier to follow). With the first round, I think it is usually a good idea to keep the upsets together. Here, it makes sense to put all of the past world champions who advanced in one paragraph, but that wouldn't make sense if all eight advanced (that would be too many to keep together). I tried to think along the lines of (1) highlighting the most important and most interesting matches, and (2) making it easy for someone to find one or two specific match results if that is the only thing they were looking for. Hope that helps! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with you - With some tweeks, but it does need to be consistent across all snooker/cue sports articles (where prose is well written). Thank you for the review Sportsfan77777, your review technique, and attention to detail has made the article better. Thank you for your time. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Rodney Baggins[edit]

Hi there, You may have noticed that I've done a ton of stuff on the article over the Christmas break (nothing better to do!) I'm just about finished now, but have still to sort out the First round section, which I've left until last because it's the most complicated and possibly requires the most doctoring. Rather than dive in with my changes I thought it best to talk to you guys first. I also want to address the summarized feedback that Sportsfan77777 made on 22 December in "update and new comment" edit.

As an update, I added an "Overview" section at the start that explains the format of the event (mostly just pulled from the tournament summary and qualifying sections). This section is intended to handle issues like... you can't say "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the last 32 positions at the 2018 World Snooker Championship" without first specifying that "the main draw features 32 players".

→ I've made quite a few changes to the Overview section. I've rewritten the first paragraph to clarify the structure of the tournament, the fact that it consisted of a qualifying draw and main draw both in Sheffield, with precise dates and locations of the two draws. I've removed the historical information as I thought it was out of context and mostly repeated from the lead, so I've confined that material to the lead where it is more appropriate.

In the second paragraph I've tried to make it clear how the rankings affect the seeds in the main draw. Lee will need to check this to make sure I got my facts straight! I've also made changes to the third paragraph but that possibly needs a bit more work...?

I also split off information about who is competing into a "Notable participants" section. This is meant to have the tournament summary better focus on the matches and results.

→ First of all, I don't like the heading "Notable participants" as I agree with Lee that all competitors are "notable" strictly speaking. In terms of Wikipedia lingo, a notable person is someone who has enough about them to warrant a Wikipedia article, and all of our snooker players do! I would prefer to use the word "significant" so maybe something like "Significant participants" or even better "Significant competitors"...?

While looking at this section, I noticed that the wikilinking throughout the article was a little erratic so I tried to sort it out. All significant players should be linked from this Notable participants section as a first point of call for the reader, and then not linked again until lower down the article in the Main draw section, where every player is continuously linked throughout the tournament tree. Other players who do not feature in the Notable participants section should be linked at their first mention and then not again until the Main draw section.

I think the prose in the "Tournament summary" section still needs to be improved. Individual matches aren't introduced that well, and the broader context either isn't always provided or isn't structured well.

→ I've pretty much copyedited the entire Tournament summary section in small chunks and won't bore you with the details here! I'm still working on the First round subsection. To address the problem of clarifying who's who and who upset who, I propose to "tag" every player with their credentials at first mention, i.e. state whether a player is a former world champion or runner-up, plus their seed (for top 16) or current ranking position. For example, Ronnie O'Sullivan should be introduced as "Five-time world champion Ronnie O'Sullivan (2nd seed)" rather than just plain old "Ronnie O'Sullivan". Then the reader can immediately tell in each match who is the more seasoned player and more likely to win the match. To explain all this I will add in my new version of the First round subsection here for your perusal, when it's ready, which should be later today.

This issue is the biggest in the first round, when there are a lot more matches to keep track of. For example, in the first round, it's not clear which players are seeded in each match. For the first round section in particular, I would recommend trying to solve this by sorting the matches first by separating the upsets (where the qualifiers won) from the ones where the seeded players won. Then within each of those two sections, I would suggest sub-sorting the matches chronologically.

→ I've hopefully solved the problem of showing which players are seeded in each match but I've not done anything about actually sorting the matches in order of significance. It might be worth subdividing it further into sub-sub-sections with upsets grouped together first, not sure...

Other comments
  1. I've made a few improvements to the Prize fund section. You probably need to check these and if you agree with any or all of them, maybe these changes need to be carried back into the previous snooker world champs articles for consistency.
  2. I think the Main draw section needs an introductory paragraph rather than just a paltry "The numbers in parentheses are players' seedings." The tree possibly needs a bit of explanation but I'm not sure what at the moment.
  3. I've made a few changes to the Notes and added new ones about the two table setup and the prize money distribution.
  4. I've done some image tweaking and noticed that these photos are not actually from the 2018 championship so do not accurately portray the tournament in snapshot form – is this common practice and is it OK?

- Yep, common practice for all Snooker articles. We'd love to have them from the event; but I didn't go to the event, and we didn't have any released under free license. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First round[edit]

I've published a general copyedit of the prose in the main article First round section. Further to that, I suggest adding player credentials on top, as follows:

(start)...

The draw for the opening round of the main tournament was on 19 April 2018, two days before the start of the competition.[13] It was due to take place at 10:00 BST but was delayed until 12:00 BST because of technical issues.[14] The matches for the first round were spread out over six days from 21 to 26 April, and played using a two table setup[b] in the Crucible Theatre. Each first round match was played over two sessions, as best of 19 frames (10 frames needed to win).[4]

There were a total of sixteen first round matches, in which a number of qualifiers defeated seeded players. The defending champion and number one seed, Mark Selby, played qualifier Joe Perry (world number 22), in the opening match of the first round. Perry won the first four frames before pulling away to 7–2 ahead after the first session of play. Selby was unable to catch Perry and was defeated 4–10, ending his 10-match undefeated streak in the world championships, as well as his two-year reign as world champion.[15][16]

Chinese debutant Lyu Haotian defeated Marco Fu (11th seed) in his first round match. Fu had recently undergone eye surgery, to repair retinal degeneration and myodesopsia in his left eye.[17] Lyu was 6–3 up after the first session and went on to win the match 10–5.[18] The 2005 world champion Shaun Murphy (8th seed) played qualifier Jamie Jones (world number 51) in the first round. It was a tight match, with the scores drawing level at various stages, until Jones defeated Murphy 10–9 in a final frame decider.[19] The 2010 world champion Neil Robertson (10th seed) was also defeated, losing 5–10 to qualifier Robert Milkins (world number 37).[20]

Two other qualifiers who won their first round matches were Ricky Walden (world number 27) and Jack Lisowski (world number 30). Walden defeated 13th seed Luca Brecel 10–6; he was comfortably five frames ahead at 8–3, when Brecel won the next three frames to bring the score to 8–6, before Walden won the last two frames of the match.[21] Lisowski defeated the 2015 world champion and 12th seed Stuart Bingham 10–7, thereby securing his first world championship match win.[c][21]

Two-time World Championship runner-up Ali Carter (15th seed) defeated the 2006 world champion Graeme Dott (world number 21) in their first round match 10–8, despite being three frames behind at 3–6 overnight.[22] Five-time world champion Ronnie O'Sullivan (2nd seed) trailed 0–4 and then 3–6 after the opening session in his match against qualifier Stephen Maguire (world number 18), but then won seven of the last eight frames to win 10–7.[23][24] The 16th frame of this encounter was O'Sullivan's 1000th frame win at the Crucible. This was also his 15th consecutive first round victory at the world championships.[16][25]

2018 Masters finalist Kyren Wilson (9th seed) defeated two-time World Championship runner-up Matthew Stevens (world number 52) in their first round match 10–3.[24] In the 12th frame, Stevens accidentally nudged the pink ball with his hand and declared a foul on himself, which allowed Wilson to win the frame, extending his lead to 9–3.[26] The reigning Masters champion Mark Allen (16th seed) defeated debutant Liam Highfield 10–5; neither player scored a century, but Highfield came close with two breaks of 99.[27]

The 2013 runner-up Barry Hawkins (6th seed) defeated qualifier and world number 56 Stuart Carrington 10–7, after winning a 55-minute 14th frame.[19] For the second successive year, the 2016 runner-up Ding Junhui (3rd seed) faced a fellow Chinese player in the first round of the tournament; having defeated Zhou Yuelong in 2017, he faced qualifier Xiao Guodong (world number 25) in 2018. Ding came out as a convincing 10–3 winner, despite losing the opening two frames of the match.[28]

Two-time world champion Mark Williams (7th seed) defeated qualifier Jimmy Robertson (world number 34) in his first round match 10–5. Williams led 7–2 after the initial session, then he hit a tournament highest break (at that point) of 140 in the 13th frame, to go 9–4 ahead, before winning the match after two further frames.[29] Four-time world champion John Higgins (5th seed) defeated Thai debutant Thepchaiya Un-Nooh 10–7. Both players attempted maximum breaks:[30] Higgins missed the 14th red ball on 104 in the 8th frame of the first session; Un-Nooh scored 14 reds with blacks, on course for his second career maximum, before missing the 15th red on 112 in the 12th frame of the final session.[30]

The 14th seed Anthony McGill defeated qualifier and world number 17 Ryan Day 10–8; despite trailing 5–8 earlier in the match, McGill won the last five frames to secure his place in the second round. He said he could not believe that he had won,[31] and the BBC referred to McGill's win as an "unbelievable comeback".[32] The closing match of the first round saw the second final frame decider between the 2011 runner-up Judd Trump (4th seed) and debutant Chris Wakelin. Recovering from 4–8 behind, Wakelin won four frames in a row to draw level at 8–8. They shared the next two frames, bringing the score to nine apiece, before Trump took the deciding frame.[31]

Of the eight former world champions playing in the main stage of the tournament, three won their first round matches to progress to the second round. The three successful players were Ronnie O'Sullivan (five-time champion), John Higgins (four-time champion) and Mark Williams (two-time champion), all professionals since 1992.[33]

...(end)

As I've simply over-written the old version here, you just need to pull up a diff to examine the changes I've made. I've added in the player credentials to hopefully address the issue brought up in Sportsfan's review. Every player in the First round section is now "tagged" with a seed (for the 16 automatic qualifiers) or a world ranking (for the other qualifiers) to distinguish their standing in the tournament and give better context to each of the first round matches. I haven't bothered putting in the rankings for the four debutants but that can easily be arranged if you like. Let me know what you think. I'm now off to the cinema to see Bo Rap (again)! Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Pre-FAC comments[edit]

Just in case the article is taken over to FAC, here are my thoughts on what might be picked up, as I promised Lee Vilenski I would do (some time ago!!).

  • The lead is a little too short. Admittedly I struggle when constructing Boat Race leads, but usually three paragraphs for an article of this size would be the norm. Go through and see if you can bring a sentence or two to bear out of each section in the article... Immediate omissions could be hosting organisation," prize fund, top prize, top break in the tournament...
Added the above. Still feel it needs more though.
  • "third and 21st" need to check MOS:NUM (cats and dogs) for this.
  • Is the 2015 logo still valid for the 2018 Championship, no changes whatsoever? Could you find a 2018 version?
I'll take a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check out MOS:FLAG. I think this kind of article is a reasonable candidate to have such decorative flags removed as all the players are playing for themselves, and their nationality isn't directly relevant. Worth ironing this out first time round before hitting any of the other snooker articles up...
I think this one might get a lot of fightback from WP:SNOOKER, but I can find out. I understand the overuse of flags, but it's a very common usage on tournament sports articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the game of snooker.[1] The sport of snooker" reads repetitive and odd...
I agree. I've Just said Snooker. Hopefully that is better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few MOS things, e.g. "championship 7 times" seven, and " final 18-15. " should use en-dash, i.e. " final 18–15. ", worth checking across the whole article.
I've changed this example, but I'll give the article a full copyedit to check later. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The winner of the 2018 event earns..." tense.
  • "1st", "number 1", again MOSNUM here.
  • Image captions should follow WP:CAPFRAG so "complete" sentences need a full stop.
For whatever reason, someone took them all out. I've put them back in Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Second round" section, you link the 2008 and 2012 WCs, you didn't do that when talking about which finals each of the world champions and finalists had been in... be consistent, but also pay heed to WP:EASTER (I often link various editions of the Boat Race this way but always include "race" somewhere, e.g. "the 2012 race", or "the 2012 and 2013 races"...
Should these just be removed? I've changed as above; I've not listed the events that they won in fear of overlinking, however, I think t's important to note this was a rematch of two prior championship finals (as was listed in several sources). Much like if Jimmy White had met Stephen Hendry in the second round of the world championships, it would be important to note they had met in 4 prior finals of the event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general I tend to avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
Changed. I'll potentially expand the prizefund section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of unexplained bold used in the latter stages of the article.
I've tried to explain this, much as with the brackets Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes, like [c] should also be referenced if they're making claims.
No worries, it's listed in the main reference for this section, which I've implimented. 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Adam Stefanów doesn't appear to have a diacritic in his Wikipedia common name...
Moved the article. No idea why it wasn't already listed like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "across europe" obvious...
removed. Although, it;s not 100% obvious, as EuroSport (despite the name) doesn't broadcast to the whole of Europe, and can be watched in places outside of Europe I believe. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The event was also broadcast by World Snooker internationally on Facebook, having been broadcast ..." try to avoid repeating words in a single sentence, for me it's always jarring prose.
Reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid spaced hyphens ( - ), those should be spaced en-dashes (per MOS:DASH), i.e. ( – ).
There's a script that does this, (Which I had run), but for whatever reason, it missed some. I ran it again, and it should be good now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a quick run-through, happy to expand, re-visit etc! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Rambling Man! I've put some changes into effect. I hope this is nearer the FA class that I was looking for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flags[edit]

@Tvx1: How is attempting to comply with the MOS "forcing through personal preferences"? This article is undergoing an FA review and we are being told there that this change is necessary. There is no need for every snooker article do be uniform. Do we even have any FA snooker articles? I doubt it. It would be a real shame if it were to fail over this issue.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree:, don't fall for their claims. Their insistence that usage of {{flagicon}} will block this from reaching FA status is patently untrue. Those two users have been trying the same game on multiple snooker articles now. I myself have successfully shepherded a number of sports articles through FAC's and these icons weren't even mentioned during them. They are just plainly wrong. {{flagicon}} is a carefully chosen template which is even accessible to blind people. Those two are just trying to game system. One of the two users vocally strongly opposing to use {{flagicon}} on Snooker article, relying on an unsupported claim that it will block getting FA's, nominates such an article as a FAC and shortly afterwards the other user that was vocally strongly opposing to use {{flagicon}} along them arrives to post a reviewing "oppose" because of the usage of just that template. That's no coincidence and really really low behavior. The only ones thinking that change is necessary is them two and it's coincidentally them two who coincidentally just now create a FAC where them two claim it is necessary?? I too would like Snooker to have a number of FA's but the reason that we have none yet is not this template. The most important reason is that most articles simply aren't comprehensive enough. We can mostly get a number of these articles to FA with the contested template.Tvx1 13:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK well I was going by the link to MOS:FLAG linked in the review which states the name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag. I guess he need to wait for other reviewers to weigh in. One thing that will definitely fail it is an edit war, so I hope we can reach some kind of compromise.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best to just keep the long-time stable version before these two arrived and see what other issues are reported by independent reviewers. I'll be happy to help out with any of the content issues. As for other snooker FA's, has any other snooker article ever been nominated as a FAC? If so, whey did it/they actually fail? Maybe that will tells how can really improve these articles.Tvx1 14:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also says "Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table." so attaching names to all flags is clearly overkill. Naming the first use of a particular flag in each table would satisfy the MOS. I would also recommend removing all flags from the "Century breaks" section. Nigej (talk) 14:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention to the above that I have been discussing promoting this article for FA for around two months. I don't really have much of a preference in terms of how to handle these things, but I do want to promote to FA. We can change to whatever version is suitible for passing an FA (I've worked very hard on Snooker articles for a while, and have many GAs in the field). In my eyes, neither the flag or flagicon templates are really right, as we should really use {{flagathlete}}. Every other FA I've seen uses this for sports articles. I would suggest it might be more helpful to help out the FA nomination (where there has only been comments from one user); rather than editwarring. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes flagathelte would be better than flag. However it is still clear that we don't need to use it every time we use flagicon. "Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, especially in a list or table." makes that quite clear. Nigej (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Before these two arrived?" I wrote 43% of this article, and pushed through the GA nomination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, upon closer inspection it does appear that it's The Rambling Man who is really the one making such a drama about these flagicons despite being repeatedly pointed out that they do not form an objection for an article to reach FA, while also being unnecessarily denigrating everyone disagreeing with them. They just don't have anything supporting their claim. Apologies to you since I appear to have dragged you into this unnecessarily. You have done a lot of edits to ensure the comprehensiveness of these articles. On the matter of the {{flagicon}} template, I feel that while it does not follow the letter of that part of the MOS it does conform to its spirit and thus the notice on top of it insisting to use common sense. It's a carefully thought out template that even caters to blind people. Everyone can find out what the icons stand for. Given that no complaints about not recognizing flags have been raised for as long as this article has existed, I feel that problem is being overstated and given the evidence of several precedent I do not believe this constitutes a problem at all for this article to become a FA.Tvx1 17:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of "it doesn't comply with MOS" (criterion 2 at FAC) don't you understand? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Part a,b and c (all parts actually) of that criterion which do not mention flagicons at all. What part of "use common sense" of the notice on top of MOS don't you understand? As I explained before, the template DOES meat the goal of that part of the MOS in that it assures that all readers can find out the flagicons' meanings. And as I explained before, many articles have become FA's with this template in use and without it even been raised during their FAC. No matter how many times you raise your objections, it just doesn't change the fact you're wrong. Stop making such a gigantic mountain out of a molehill.Tvx1 19:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, are you seriously saying that FAC criteria should be mentioning flag icons??!! Wow. Adherence to MOS is a requirement. If you don't like it, and yes, "other stuff exists", then continue to edit war to preserve your personal preference, against MOS. But as such, there's no point in continuing this. FAC failed, for as long as you continue to deliberately contravene MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I offered a dumpload of great advice because I've actually bothered to take numerous niche sporting articles to FA. Anyone else around here can say that? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Long time stable version", "before these two arrived", " reported by independent reviewers". Complete WP:OWN. Simple as that. The project is, sadly, doomed while people exercise their preference over MOS. P.S. Your tone and accusations are overt personal attacks Tvx1. You need to stop soonest or else we'll see each other at ANI where "independent reviewers" can assess your attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really have some guts to start lecturing are editors about tone and personal attacks, when it is you yourself who can't refrain from spouting these with unnecessary comments like "this project is doomed". Unless you stop with such sarcasm and denigrating comments you're not getting anywhere. These are just not needed. As I have stated again and again, no one is deliberately trying to stop these articles from getting FA.Tvx1 17:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are, deliberately editing against FA criterion 2. Stop attacking other editors, see WP:NPA. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should stop lecturing other user's about issuing PA's when you have done nothing but the same over the last few days.Tvx1 19:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one to have launched personal attacks. Disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite on the contrary. You're the one who starting launching them. You have quite the guts to make a claim like the above one.Tvx1 20:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Show me one single personal attack. You're wrong, you continue to be wrong in multiple locations here, and it's not going to make a shred of difference continuing to ignore MOS --> no MOS compliance, no FA. Things might have been different when you got your one FA through, but no longer do we accept such abuse of icons. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not up to you to decide. You keep acting like you have some authority which you quite patently do not have. Your contributions do not carry any more weight than any other ones.Tvx1 11:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fail. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have nothing better to contribute here, than it would be better if you just leave this FAC alone and let it be dealt with by the editors who actually want to make meaningful efforts to getting this articles to FA. This is getting really ridiculous.Tvx1 12:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only effort going on around here is by those determined to sink the FAC by imposing contra-MOS edits as their own personal preference. Your assessment of my contribution is so far off the mark it can only be a joke. Now then, back to the regular schedule. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's another prime example of on of your personal attacks you allegedly don't make. Here are some more: "The snooker project seem absolutely serious about never getting anything to featured status.", On the other hand, a number of users here are adamant that MOS should be completely disregarded by the snooker project (in general), I have to say that I'm completely unimpressed by the fact that whole entire snooker Wikiproject hasn't got a single featured article and continually edits to prevent it from happening. Shows a classic "ownership" style I'm afraid.. Again, if you're willing to collaborate meaningfully with these users it would be best that you do not contribute to this FAC at all and leave it to the editors who are actually willing to collaborate on getting this tio FA.Tvx1 12:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you need to re-familiarise yourself with the meaning of "personal". I have provided plenty of meaningful input to this process, unlike just about anyone else I might add. If you can't see that, or be bothered to find it, it's not my problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_World_Snooker_Championship&oldid=1196765704"