Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1983 World Snooker Championship/archive1

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) 30 August 2021 [1].

1983 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1983 edition of the World Snooker Championship, won by Steve Davis. This was Davis' second of six championships, as he defeated Cliff Thorburn in the final. Thorburn made the first maximum break in the history of the championships. Benny and I are looking forward to your comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for prose, from Shooterwalker[edit]

I'll take a shot at this one. Look for further comments from me shortly. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General comments / Lead / Overview

I know we went through this before on other articles in the topic area. So I raise a few things, understanding that consistency and precedent may make these requests moot:

  • "for the purposes of sponsorship" might be excessive detail for the first sentence. It might fit better at the end of the paragraph, when you mention the sponsor.
    • I think it's better to keep it at the start (the name that is), but maybe we don't need to explain that it's due to sponsorship, as it's almost a given. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The very first world championship seems like excessive detail for the overview, but I respect that other articles have given the history a similar treatment.
  • Above comments aside, the opening of the article is excellent, and very readable.
Qualifying
  • The first sentence might be fine with commas instead of semi-colons. (e.g.: "the Snooker Centre in Sheffield, the Romiley Forum in Stockport, and Redwood Lodge in Bristol.")
  • "equalise" -> I'm used to seeing the word "tie" or "draw". Is this a term specific to snooker?
  • No, I've certainly seen it used for association football. Wiktionary has one of the definitions of equalise/equalize as "(intransitive, sports) To make the scoreline equal by scoring points." Happy to use an alternative, though. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Houlihan won the 17th frame, but with breaks of 52 and 71 Murphy took the next two frames to progress into the second round." -> "Houlihan won the 17th frame, but Murphy took the next two frames with breaks of 52 and 71, allowing him to progress to the next round."
  • "whitewashed" is unclear in its meaning here, as someone less familiar with the game. It probably needs a slight explanation, a blue link, or a less WP:JARGONy synonym.
    • We have linked on the first use of the word earlier in that section Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First round
  • "bookmakers favourite" -> "bookmakers' favourite" (unless bookmakers favourite is also some sort of jargon)
  • Higgins led Dean Reynolds, who had taken him to a deciding frame in the second round of the 1982 UK Championship, 5–1 and finished their first session 6–3 ahead. -> the placement of the subphrase between commas here really breaks the flow, and makes this sentence confusing
  • Removed that subphrase as it's not really very relevant to this tournament. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unclear why the glasses are important enough to be worth mentioning?
  • "10–5 despite suffering from flu symptoms" -> "10–5, despite suffering from flu symptoms"
Second round
  • Given that most of the paragraph is about Higgins vs thorne, maybe it's better to add the Taylor vs Webeniuk sentence to the next paragraph, for organization.
  • "and after Reardon" -> "and, after Reardon"
  • "During the semi-final" -> isn't this the second round?
Quarter-finals
  • "annoyed by referee John Williams who awarded" -> "annoyed by referee John Williams, who awarded"
Semi-finals
  • "Thorburn took the first two frames of the third session, to lead in the match for the first time since he had won the initial two frames." -> am I misunderstanding this, or are the first two frames and initial two frames redundant?
Final
  • "It was Thorburn's third appearance in a World Championship final, after he had been runner-up in 1977 and champion in 1980, and Davis's second, two years after his victory in 1981." -> this is a mouthful and might be more readable as two sentences.
  • "Thorburn then won two frames but Davis finished the first day 12–5 ahead" -> "Thorburn then won two frames, but Davis still finished the first day 12–5 ahead" (emphasizing that two frames was still not enough to overcome him, yet)
  • There are a lot of quotes in the last paragraph, and I recommend re-evaluating if you need them all. Some could be re-stated as a prose summary. I think the first sentence would be a good candidate, just to make the sentence more readable.
Wrap-up
  • The article is quite well written. I was struggling to find prose that was truly less than featured quality, which is a really good sign. The prose doesn't need much more work, in my opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shooterwalker, thank you so much for picking up a review.:). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found time to give it a second look over and there is nothing outstanding that would stop this from being featured quality. Happy to support. If you find some time, I have another featured article nomination that could also use a review. No pressure. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM[edit]

  • Lead is a little short for me, compare it to other, recently-promoted World Snooker Championship articles.
  • "a maximum break of 147 points, becoming the first player to make a maximum break " maximum break repeated.
  • Not convinced you need to link UK.
  • "received a prize of £30,000" only just struck me, didn't the winner also receive a trophy? Only just struck me because remembering Taylor romping up and kissing it...
    • You don't really win the trophy, the same with every sport, you just get to retain it for a year. That's the Joe Davis trophy from the 1920s. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the pink with just two balls remaining." what does that mean (to a non-expert...)?
  • I find the Qualifying section a little hard to follow. It seems to jump back and forth from first to second qualifying round. Can this be put into a more orderly fashion?
  • "qualified directly for the main draw. Wildman received a walkover" these two appear linked, so surely something like "qualified directly for the main draw, receiving a walkover..."?
  • "best-of-19 frame" ->" best-of-19-frame"
  • "priced at 11/8 " could link fixed-odds betting for non-experts. And all bookies had the same price??
  • The source only gives Coral's price, so we probably need this to amend to something like "one bookmaker" or specify which. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Higgins' -> Higgins's (per MOS I'm sad to say).
  • "increased this to" his lead instead of this.
  • "and won the " -> "before winning the"
  • "only made a highest break of 36 " -> "made a highest break of just 36" (although non-experts may not get how weak this is for a pro).
  • "with high-quality" according to?
  • Removed as I looked in a couple of sources and only saw this claimed in one of them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "single frame lead" single-frame
  • "that was tactical" according to?
  • "Thorne added only one further" won rather than added.
  • "Canadian Werbeniuk wanted to watch" was this one of those "peeking round the dividing screen" moments? Can we expand if that's the case? I love those...
  • Feels like the maximum break is almost glossed over, yet it was (and still is) a seminal moment in all of snooker history. Can we add a bit more to that, e.g. Thorbs sinking to his knees, getting congratulations from everyone including Terry etc?
  • "then won six of ... then won the first" repetitive.
  • "match scorers for a second opinion" this is interesting. Did they have TV replays? VAR?
  • "won the next two to" two frames.
  • "2:12 am.[42][35]" order.
  • "to 5-11" en-dash.
  • "to fain the lead" eh?
  • "a simple red" according to whom?
  • "an easy half-ball cut shot" now, I'm not looking for a biblical description here, but this is (a) POV and (b) jargon-tastic.
  • "winning the third frame, and winning" winning winning.
  • Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thorburn was exhausted" how do we know that? Perhaps add "according to Everton" or something, we can't state it as fact and then two sentences later give Everton's opinion on the matter as "the truth".
  • Hard to believe that Frank Callan isn't worthy of a link.
  • Redlinked. Time to put something useful into the draft article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "match "I know" maybe a comma after match here.
  • "prize money brought Davis's prize money" repetitive.
  • £80,000 to £750,000 is a steep jump, was it as a result of him winning? In the 1982/83 season did he not get that sponsorship etc and just relied on prize money?
  • "Steve Davis wins his second..." full stop.
  • Again, I don't like the table where the frame scores are repeated on either side and literally the only difference is the bold. We must be able to do better than that?
  • Century breaks, I'd (once again) like to see something delineating the breaks from the names, e.g. a colon.

That's all I have. Apologies again for the delay. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't quite finished working through these, I'll get to them tomorrow. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was waiting until the comments had been responded to in full... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47[edit]

  • For this part, and broadcast on BBC television, I would link to BBC Television to clarify why the television part is necessary. When I first read this part, I did not believe the "television" part was entirely necessary. However, I am an American so I know absolutely nothing about the BBC.
  • For this part, the bookmakers' favourite, would it be possible to avoid the disambiguation page?
  • For this part, Dennis Taylor wore glasses, the glasses link seems unnecessary to me.
  • I have a question about the miscarriage sentence. How does this tie into this championship? Did Thorburn or the media discuss this as having some sort of effect on him and how he played? If not, it seems out-of-place here and better suited for the Cliff Thorburn article.
    • BennyOnTheLoose might know more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Aoba47. I've had a look in a few sources, including Thorburn's autobiography, and removed the miscarriage sentence, as the effect on Thorburn doesn't seem to have been crucial to he outcome of the semi-final or final. Regards, 19:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for checking this. I really appreciate that you took the time to double-check everything. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are my only comments. I believe the article is well-written and engaging (even to a reader like me who knows absolutely nothing about snooker; I do not mean that in a negative way, but it is just not something I have experience with myself). My comments are focused on the prose. I hope this is helpful. Once my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your responses. Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Girth Summit[edit]

  • Overview: The first two sentences of the second paragraph are in the past tense, but the third sentence starts 'The players are selected...' - is this intentional? Is it because the first two sentences no longer hold true for the current version of the event, but the third one does? Just wonder whether this could be made clearer.
  • Qualifying/first round: should we introduce the fact that Williams was world billiards champion the first time he is mentioned?
  • Consider linking 'flu symptoms' to Influenza (and whether 'flu' is informal, should we write the whole word?)
  • Second round: 'the latest finish for a snooker match at the crucible' - is it possible to clarify whether that means 'at that time', or whether the record still holds?
  • I think it's still true, but I don't have a link to confirm that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-finals: the final sentence seems to end with a comma rather than a full stop - it looks like something been accidentally cut off, the sentence is incomplete.
  • Final: The sentence about Davis's speech doesn't quite make sense to me. " ...and said that his father, and his coach Frank Callan, were the only two people in that could help him with snooker." Is something missing, or is there a stray word? Should it be "the only two people in his life that could help him with snooker", or similar?
  • Entirely unactionable comment: I feel bad for John Virgo that that's the only picture we have available of him.

Otherwise, an enjoyable read, and thoroughly researched. I expect to support this once the comments above have been addressed. Girth Summit (blether) 14:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support, nice work. Girth Summit (blether) 18:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will do. Hog Farm Talk 16:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Who is Chris Turner and what makes "Chris Turner's Snooker Archive" a reliable source?
    • Chris Turner is probably the most well respected snooker statistician out there. His archive sadly was no longer updated from around 2010, but it's a fantastic source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "Official 147s". wst.tv. World Snooker Tour. Archived from the original on 22 July 2020. Retrieved 2 August 2020." - you aren't adding the website for the other web refs, and I think it's obvious enough that "wst.tv" is short for "World Snooker Tour" that the wst.tv should be removed
  • Morrison 1989 needs page numbers
  • No action needed: (just noting for posterity) Downer is self-published, but the work is heavily used and meets WP:SPS
  • ""The Top 10 sporting epics". Eurosport UK. 30 January 2012. Archived from the original on 11 May 2012. Retrieved 11 May 2012." - the original webpage redirects to homepage, and the archive is dead for me. Is this a temporary error for the archive?
I think so? It's hard to believe that Eurosport, a mediacomglomorate was once held on a yahoo site, but it is true. I'll check round for a better archive. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checked a few sources, and no issues uncovered.

That's it for my source review. Hog Farm Talk 16:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891[edit]

Will review. I have an open FAC, if you're interested

  • "The defending champion was Alex Higgins, who defeated Ray Reardon 18–15 in the 1982 championship final" I'd prefer to have the year mentioned earlier since before here you're establishing context-- its unclear until the end of the sentence that the champion is defending in 1983, so maybe something along the lines of "The defending champion in 1983... in the last year's championship final"
  • Our article is at BBC Television, should the t be capitalized?
    • I think this is a context thing. The brand is "BBC Television", whilst we are talking about television on the BBC, which is why I originally only linked the BBC. I can't say I particularly care either way, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps consider inflation calculations for prize money?
    • Perhaps. It's not a normal thing, and historically the prize money has had barings on the ranking points. Maybe Benny will have further thoughts. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • how was it decided who got a bye? Also, why would Wych have been in the tournament but not even travel there?
    • Positions for the qualifying work the same as they do for the main tournament, players ranked 17-32 in the world rankings were given a spot in the final qualifying round. The draw is made significantly before the event, and isn't changed when a player doesn't turn up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did you decide who gets nation qualifiers (I.e. "Canadian Bill Werbeniuk")
    • Just for colour, really. But, anyone not British is quite notable (even now). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand from the description provided what advantage Taylor's glasses were supposed to have given him-- also "with Perspex lenses and a large framed and unusual 'upside-down' structure at the championships for the first time." is a mouthful that I don't really follow
    • I've removed that bit. The important bit is that he wore the glasses for the first time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would someone make a deliberate miss? This can probably be chalked up to my lack of knowledge on the topic.
    • So, back in the 1980s, if you played a foul, you would recieve foul shots, and your opponent would then play. If you intentionally played a shot that didn't hit the correct ball, but do so in such a way that your opponent doesn't have an easy shot, it would be an advantage, and bad sportsmanship. We no longer have this issue, as if you miss now, you can be asked to retake the shot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last sentence in "semi finals" looks incomplete
  • Seems in pretty good shape as a whole. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

Gog the Mild - there are a few items being addressed for new reviews above, but as we have source/image and three supports, any chance of me/Benny looking at another one? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Go ahead. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2021 (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/1983_World_Snooker_Championship/archive1&oldid=1041516594"