Talk:John Spencer (snooker player)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleJohn Spencer (snooker player) 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 18, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 23, 2023Good article nomineeListed
December 2, 2023Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 2, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that John Spencer won a World Snooker Championship on his first attempt in 1969?
Current status: Featured article


Which Radcliffe?[edit]

Resolved
 – Article updated with this information.

Which of the various Radcliffes in England was he born in? Calsicol 08:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one near Bury in Greater Manchester.

Date of birth[edit]

Resolved
 – Article updated to use 18 Sept.; needs verification either way.

Most sources give Spencer's date of birth as 18 September 1935, not 18 June. This also makes his age at death wrong (70, not 71). Can you clarify please? Haydn01 10:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review notes[edit]

Some things you might want to address before nominating for GA review:

  • I'm not entirely happy about including photos of other players, not sure what they add and maybe primarily decorative. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE
  • In "Early years" section:
    • "At the time, participation in snooker was in decline." is an unsourced sweeping statement.
    • "There were effectively no officially organised professional tournaments at the time" > ditto
  • Ref. 90 has page number as zero - is that correct?
  • In "Retirement and final years" section, we haven't actually stated exactly when he retired!

More tomorrow. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the images. I can see why they were there – the article is a massive sea of text otherwise but the MOS guidelines say "not every article needs images". You could always put them back in and see if they're mentioned in the GA review? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added back the Reardon photo; let's see what review comments come back. I've removed the two sweeping statements as I couldn't find a good single source - I think its a reasonable summary of Everton's view but he takes several pages over this rather than providing a definite statement. Corrected the page 0 to page 9. Added Spencer's retirement year - I couldn't get a month. I also removed the sentence about him being the first player since Joe Davis to win the World Championship at the first attempt, as I checked a few sources and none of them mentioned this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's everything covered now. All copyediting done on my part. I added a proper caption to the Reardon photo to give it a solid context and justify its inclusion. Good to go for GA nom. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:John Spencer (snooker player)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 13:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links[edit]

Prose[edit]

Lede[edit]

  • the year that the event reverted to a knockout tournament - whilst I think this is important from a historical point of view, it's not all that important to a reader about the person (in the lede at least). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been meaning to mention this previously, but MOS:CUE says we should actually capitalise "World Champion" and similar, even when not describing the event. Not sure on my thoughts on this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended the pharasing in the lead (to included "Championship"_; and in the other place I could see it, to "all the World Champions since 1969". MOS:SPORTCAPS says "Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources" but I'm not sure how one is going to prove "usually". It also says " Generic usage is not: a three-time world champion," so I'm not sure that this change was necessary. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • pockets on the table did not meet the required specifications - could probably shorten and say the tables weren't official, or that the table wasn't uniform. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Pending - I'm not sure either of those suggestions quite hit the mark. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for pinging. Personally, I think it's fine as it is, but could maybe change to "...as the event was using non-templated tables with oversized pockets." Maximum break article says "the event was using non-templated tables" and the given source (WWW Snooker archive) says "the table had oversized pockets" so I just combined the two. I can't believe there are no other sources that would help provide a clearer description of this. People might wonder what a 'non-templated' table is. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Rodney Baggins. I went back to Snooker Scene for February 1979, which unsurprisingly has more detail than other sources: "A certificated referee, Nobby Clarke of Ipswich, was officiating and the public was present but the pockets were not tested for size by the all important official B&SCC templates before the table was dismantled. The B&SCC were quick to offer their templates and various sets were in the hands of snooker firms in the area, but with no one taking responsibility for the matter the table was never tested." Apparently the informal consensus was that the pockets were "easier than standard with the fall of the slate at the pocket openings helpfully rounded". ("Spencer first in Holsten Lager International", p.7) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take your word that you'll have this worded as it should be - it's hardly a big deal, it just seemed like odd wording on first read. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • before turning professional in February 1967 - I think to prevent people having to do the maths, and it being so rare he was so old when turning professional we should add it here. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. (Though the real rarity was anyone turning professional, given that the previous one was 16 years earlier). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

  • I feel like there's enough info for the "early years" to be split up and be amateur and professional Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • finally lifted - I'm not sure "finally" is fair, considering he won it on the third attempt. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the new champion's display was a revelation. His long potting, his prodigious screw shots even when cue-ball and object-ball were seven or eight feet apart, his uninhibited use of side, his bright attacking style, even the mere fact that here was a bright new face, made Spencer's win a memorable one." - this is quite a long quote - can we split it up? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried a couple of things but I think it works much better to retain the original together - I've applied MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. Happy to hear any specific proposals. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • semi-final by 33–37 on a poor-quality table - "by" is superfluous. Mentioning the table might be NPOV without addition. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by BennyOnTheLoose (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 01:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Spencer (snooker player), so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

I meant to do that but I forgot somehow. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I shall do a full DYK review of this, taking into account the piped link suggestion above (which is the correct way to do it)
  • checkY Article is a GA (and the GA review looks comprehensive), article has been nominated in time (became a GA on 22 January, nominated 29 January, which is exactly 7 days later, so all good), and article is within policy.
  • checkY Hook is short enough, interesting, in the article and well cited. Approving the version suggested by Metropolitan90, which includes the piped link John Spencer rather than John Spencer (snooker player) in original hook suggestion
  • checkY QPQ done
  • Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Citation needed[edit]

The last sentence in the first paragraph of the "Early professional career" section is lacking a citation. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. If anyone can justify its inclusion, and find a cite they can add it back. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split Hayton & Dee citation?[edit]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Hi there, it's occurred to me that ref.65 (Hayton & Dee 2004, pp. 912–914) has an awful lot of ref tags (which I hate). Would it be possible to split into two or three separate citations, each with consequently fewer tags? Ref.101 is Hayton & Dee 2004, p. 914. so could we just use that along with two others: Hayton & Dee 2004, p. 912. and Hayton & Dee 2004, p. 913. Or, if there's a natural split somewhere on page 913, we could perhaps just have these two: Hayton & Dee 2004, pp. 912–913. and Hayton & Dee 2004, pp. 913–914. and absorb the current ref.101 into the latter? I don't have access to the book but pretty sure you do! Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodney Baggins: yes, it's hardly pleasing to the eye as it is. For each player, the book has a chronological list of match results. For Spencer, page 912 covers up to the end of the 1979-80 season (The Pontins Professional). Page 913 covers from the start of the 1980-81 season to a few walkovers from 1991-92 (Rothmans Grand Prix, Dubai Classic, Strachan Professional, Asian Open). Page 914 has the rest of that season and the two following ones. Unfortunately, I think in the table a lot of the tournaments cover more than one of these periods, but most of the uses in the body text will only need a single page. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer/Reardon rivalry[edit]

I think the third paragraph of the current "1972 to 1976" section is out of place. It talks about Spencer's relationship (or lack of it) with Reardon, and then jumps ahead to their brief doubles partnership in the early 1980s. I suggest splitting and moving it elsewhere (as shown in my next edit). I've also moved the Reardon image down for now to sit with the related text. I'm aware that the 1970s Spencer/Reardon rivalry/dominance thing isn't strictly speaking to do with Spencer's playing style and legacy but I couldn't see where else to put it. I did wonder about including a new section or sub-section to deal with the whole Spencer/Reardon issue separately, but that might appear to be drawing too much attention to it. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer/Reardon doubles partnership[edit]

I've fixed the dates of the first two events (1982 and 1983), but then it states that the Spencer/Reardon partnership ended when Spencer realised he would be too ill to play in the 1985 event. I assume that also needs to be corrected to 1984. The thing I don't get is that Spencer partnered up with Tony Knowles in 1984 and they did in fact do pretty well, making it through to the semi-finals, so Spencer was probably relatively OK at the time of the tournament. He also took part in the other three doubles championships (1985, 1986, 1987) but with different partners each time. Would you say the reason his doubles partnership with Reardon came to a premature end was that it didn't seem fair on Reardon to be shackled by a potentially ill partner? Putting that into words in a sensitive encyclopedic manner might be tricky though. What does the source say? ("Spencer's double vision" in Snooker Scene, September 1984, page 5.) Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World No.2 – 77/78 season[edit]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Hi there, here's another query for you whilst waiting for the FAC to wrap up. The infobox states that JS reached his highest ranking of world no.2 in 77/78, but this is not covered in the article. The Retirement and final years section starts off by mentioning that he fell to a career-low 34th in the world rankings for 86/87, but no other mention is made of his world ranking position anywhere. He presumably rose to world no.2 after winning the 1977 world championship and the Pontins Pro title, so that would slot into the first paragraph of the 3rd world title section. Do any of your sources say anything about this? It might be nice to add it in, with source, if you have one. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodney Baggins: Although Spencer didn't play again on the professional circuit after the 1992 World Championship, he retained a ranking for the following two seasons, and I've added them in. I think it is worth including more about his ranking; the placings are referenced in the table. The WPBSA typically published the rankings after the World Championship, which until 1983/1984 were based only on World Championship results. Althought these were usually published within a matter of weeks of the championship, they sometimes changed later. (e.g. 1984/1985). I'll see if I can find any sources that comment on his rankings. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Morrison (1987) p. 127: "The eye trouble was part of the reason for Spencer's decline and his drop from 20th to 34th in the rankings, but he showed true fighting spirit in the 1986-87 season and hauled himself back into the top 32 and into 28th place in the rankings. That upward trend was largely thanks to a great performance in the Dulux British Open, when, after fine wins over Tony Meo and Dave Martin, Spencer found himself in the quarter-final." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

autobiography[edit]

in his autobiography, does spencer describe a date in 1985 as "the worst day of his life"? a footnote in the article asserts this, although the corresponding text in the article body appears to be referring to a 1984 tournament. (i am admittedly unsure if the 1985 date is actually referring to when he was first diagnosed.)

also, the wording in the footnote suggests that the quote "the worst day of his life" was taken directly from his autobiography, which, i would have assumed, was not written from the third-person perspective. if the quote wasn't taken from another source, should the quote be "the worst day of my life" (or "the worst day of [his] life") instead?

by the way, i think the use of double quotation marks would be more appropriate here, as per mos:double, assuming the quote was taken directly from his autobiography. dying (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dying and BennyOnTheLoose: I think we both missed this query. Benny, is it worth addressing it before tomorrow? I'm fairly sure you have a copy of the autobiography. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, Rodney Baggins. On page 9 of his 2005 autobiograpy, Spencer does say "The worst day of my life was May 9, 1985. I was at Pontin's Holiday Camp..." and goes on to describe feeling very tired, takng a nap, and waking up with double vision. The July 1984 Snooker Scene article has "John Spencer ... is receiving treatment for double vision. The condition has persisted since the Pontins Open at Prestatyn in May." I think that note e is OK as it mentions the discrepancy in sources which could due to be a typo or a misremembrance in Spencer's book. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dying: - sorry forgot to ping you. thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, BennyOnTheLoose, i had not realized that the footnote was meant to explain a discrepancy in the sources! thanks for that clarification. i had erroneously interpreted the footnote as giving additional detail, and had wondered if "1985" was simply a typo. (it might have been, though perhaps one that was made in the autobiography itself.) thanks for addressing this issue, BennyOnTheLoose! dying (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Places of birth/death[edit]

As in the article:

Born 18 September 1935 Radcliffe, Lancashire, England Died 11 July 2006 (aged 70) Bolton, Lancashire, England

But the articles for both Radcliffe and Bolton say the towns are in Greater Manchester, not Lancashire. BhamBoi (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, it looks like Radcliffe was a part of the administrative county of Lancashire until the 1970s. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for Bolton, it says "The town is also within the historic county boundaries of Lancashire.". I'm not sure that is enough to suggest it is in Lancashire. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Lancashire article, it doesn't talk about any territorial changes since 1974. That doesn't mean nothing happened, but I'm left assuming Bolton was in the same county as is is now. BhamBoi (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Spencer_(snooker_player)&oldid=1221198833"