Talk:2018 World Snooker Championship/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

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]
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/GA1&oldid=877217677"