Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1981 World Snooker Championship/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 April 2023 [1].

1981 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the tournament where Steve Davis, who went on to dominate the sport in the 1980s, won his first world title. The losing finalist, Doug Mountjoy, set a championship record break of 145 in his semi-final match. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Henni147[edit]

I gave my support in the first nomination round already, and I am happy to support this great article again. Henni147 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chris[edit]

  • "There were a total of eight qualifying groups – each with" - think that dash should be a comma
  • "Despite not winning any major tournament since the 1978 World Snooker Championship, Ray Reardon was the bookmakers' favourite to win at that time" - maybe change the last three words to "at the time of the draw" for total clarity
  • "had become the bookmakers favourite to win, at 7–2" - missing apostrophe in bookmakers'
  • "but lost the match after being tied at 5–6, 6–6, and 8–8" - "tied at 5-6" doesn't seem to make sense to me........?
  • Reardon image caption needs a full stop
  • "Eight-times former world snooker champion" => "Eight-time former world snooker champion"
  • Thorburn and Davis captions also need full stops
  • "The two players had a total of 37 visits to the table on the blue" - I feel this language is ever so slightly obscure, maybe change to "The two players made a total of 37 attempts to pot the blue".....?
  • Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've made the amendments. On your last point, we don't know from sources whether all 37 visits were attempts to pot the ball (it's likely that most were safety shots}, so I've reworded as I'm not sure that the cue sports glossary entry for visit would solve the problem of obscurity. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • (also referred to as the 1981 Embassy World Snooker Championship due to sponsorship) - we now seem to use "Officially X" to not state that the information is a sponsorship name. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended - I'm not sure on what basis it's "officially" but as you say, that's the consensus that has emerged. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose that's the actual name for the event... but Wikipedia does it's best to not overdo sponsorships. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering we don't use WPBSA again in the lede, there's no need to acronym it here. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could probably mention the format, or at least that there was a qualification round. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to the lead - I realised that the result of the 1980 final wasn't included in the artivle, so added that to the body too. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • I feel like the overview could go into a little more depths as to how the matches were played, the length of matches, qualification etc. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All qualifying matches were scheduled in best-of-17 playoff format - bit weird to say playoff - surely this is the best-of-17 frames? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Playoff" link seems like a valid, but unneccessary inclusion, given the rest of the sentence. Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was to address the concerns about accessibility of the finals tables used in other articles, by using text to replace the information shown in those tables. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How on earth did seeding work for the qualifying? White, Pulman and Fagan just got byes! Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formatting was a bit off, making it look like it was White rather than Meadowcroft who was exempted. However, checking old issues of Snooker Scene, Meadowcroft was due to play Barrie, who withdrew. I added a note about seedings in the Overview sections. Wych, Fagan and Pulman were 17th, 18th and 19th on the Snooker world rankings 1980/1981 and thus the highest-ranked players in qualifying, so the exemptions now make sense. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
Hadn't seen this one was at FAC (or the last time), I'll take a look. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

  • FN 1: I would format thestar.co.uk as The Star
  • Amended. As there are several publications called The Star, I added the location. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will AGF on the offline sources
  • Thanks. Let me know if you do want extracts from any of the offline sources. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 46b returns a configuration error.
  • Looks like none of the those online sources are live now. I removed the configuration error one, and added an offline source. (It may still look a bit like citation overkill, but multiple sources are needed as none of these on their own confirm all of the results, seedings, and nationalities.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are of reliable quality. FrB.TG (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by HurricaneHiggins[edit]

I'd take some issue with this sentence in the lead: "The tournament was the 1981 edition of the annual World Snooker Championship, a World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association-sanctioned event which was first held in 1927." It suggests that world championships were held annually since 1927 and sanctioned by the WPBSA since 1927, neither of which is the case.

I amended the text in the lead and body. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the lead: "Thorburn lost by 10 frames to 16 in the 1981 semi-finals to Steve Davis." I'd remove the atypical way of reporting the score, and there's surely no need to say that he lost in the 1981 semi-finals when we already know this is an article about the 1981 event. "Thorburn lost 10–16 to Steve Davis in the semi-finals" is sufficient here, in my view.

Amended in the article, but in a way to keep the cuegloss link to frames. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, en-dashes (–) are used throughout the article in place of em-dashes (—). En-dashes are typically used for complex compound adjectives (such as post–World War II) or to indicate the range between two numbers or dates. Otherwise, in regular prose, we should use em-dashes.HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended some - are em-dashes also needed for odds (e.g. 3–1) and/or frame scores (e.g. 18–12)? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, HurricaneHiggins. I've replied above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @BennyOnTheLoose. We should use en-dashes for scores, odds, dates, etc. Generally, if it goes between two numbers, it's an en-dash. But em-dashes are commonly used in prose—to set off parenthetical remarks like this—so thanks for changing that.
Happy to support the article's promotion now. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some books have publisher locations and some not? Either is acceptable, but an article should be consistent. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1981_World_Snooker_Championship/archive2&oldid=1150224586"