Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1984 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2020 [1].

1984 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC), User:BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the World Snooker Championship event in 1984. A year before the blackball final, Steve Davis won his third world championship. He defeated Jimmy White in the final, which was White's first of six losses at this stage! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

I am reviewing the prose of the article. I will leave the source checking to the editors more experienced in this realm of Wikipedia. If you could review one of my GANs in return, that would be great. NoahTalk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 16 invited seeded Something about two -ed words together doesn't resonate well. NoahTalk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the highest total pool for any snooker tournament to that date I feel this would be better as "the highest of any snooker tournament at that time?". NoahTalk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualifying for the event was held Looks like this is missing a couple of words. NoahTalk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (4th seed), Alex Higgins (5), John Virgo (14) and Tony Meo (15) Could "th" be added to the others so it is consistent? NoahTalk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in tabloid newspaper missing "the". NoahTalk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taylor won just one frame in the first five frames in third session, Davis lead 13-6 Semi-colon instead of the comma? Also missing "the" here. NoahTalk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • White attributed his illness to some sandwiches he had eaten, and some cough syrup he had used to recover from a throat infection. Remove the comma here as these are part of the same thought. NoahTalk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • White however won the next three Commas needed to offset however. NoahTalk 01:27, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've covered the above Hurricane Noah. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting on prose! NoahTalk 01:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 10:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

Not a topic I am familiar with, but the article is in good shape and I'm leaning toward support. I have a few comments:

  • "and broadcast by BBC and ITV." - might be worth making clear whether we are talking about radio or television (or both). The kids of the future might think it's referring to online streaming or something unless we make it explicit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does say "televised" in the prose. I don't think we need to be super specific in the lede, as I'm sure they also did cover results and such on the radio (not that ITV has a radio station). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could have a picture of the Crucible in the "Tournament format" section? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coronation Street needs to be italicised; ideally also spell out which channel it was on (ITV I'm guessing?). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was on ITV, but that's not really the point. It's the fact that Coronation street took eyes from the snooker. I have mentioned and have italed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alex Higgins provided commentary" - might be worth introducing him as "Sports commentator Alex Higgins" or something. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason it's notable is because he wasn't a commentator, I've added that he was the world number five at the time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who played snooker part-time" - who played professional snooker part-time? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Interestingly, he only played two more professional matches after his first round loss! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would re-word "If the defending champion was ranked outside the top 16 in the world rankings as an automatic qualifier.[4]" to make it a bit clearer. At present I'm not altogether sure what is meant here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

I have added this to the Urgents list hoping to get more feedback. Otherwise, it will need to be archived soon. --Laser brain (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720[edit]

NOTE: It has been many years since I reviewed an FAC, so disregard comments if they are not applicable. I will do a more in-depth review later today, but here are some preliminary thoughts:

  • "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players.[a] As defending champion, Steve Davis was seeded first for the event; the remaining 15 seeds were allocated based on world rankings for the previous season." Can you use a synonym for "seed"? It's a lot of the same word in two sentences.
    • The problem is that you might use the word "rankings", but there is a ranking, and a seed, which in this case are two different things. I've removed the third use of "seed". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eight-time former world champion Fred Davis won his match against Jim Donnelly 10–5 to become the oldest player in the main competition, at the age of 70." This sentence confused me. Do you mean Davis was the oldest player to qualify for the main competition? I would restructure this sentence to clarify.
  • "One player, Canadian John Bear, was scheduled to play but did not" Do any sources say why he did not play? I won't oppose if this information is missing.

Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't found any stated reason in sources. I know that in other years some of the Canadian players just didn't travel across the Atlantic for the event. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • In the qualifying section, it says "Eight-time former world champion Fred Davis won his match against Jim Donnelly 10–5 to become the oldest player in the main competition, at the age of 70" and then in First Round it says "Aged 70 years and 253 days, he became the tournament's oldest-ever player." It sounds like you are stating the same fact twice (if a person is the oldest player to ever compete in a World Snooker Championship, then I can logically conclude that he's the oldest player in the tournament.) Pick one place to state this information.
  • "Many of the matches had emphatic scorelines." After reading the scored in the subsequent sentence, I am confused why these matches were "emphatic". Is this sentence trying to say that the matches were lopsided victories for one player? I think there are better words to use here to instantly convey meaning to the reader.
  • "Knowles, who had been the only player to beat Steve Davis in the World Championship in the previous three years, with a 10–1 surprise win over Davis in the first round in 1982, lost 7–10 to John Parrott." This feels like it's meandering because the sidebar of the sentence (everything from "who had been" to "in 1982") is too long. Consider restructuring or deleting "with a 10-1 surprise win over Davis in the first round in 1982"
  • "There were eight centuries in the championship" I would wikify century.

Those are all my comments. Let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. I support promoting this article to FA. Z1720 (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TRM[edit]

  • "held at the Crucible since the event was first held" held, held repeat.
  • " in 1977." could be described as an Easter egg link. Similarly the 1978 link. Etc, etc.
  • "94 participants" - the source given for this in the main prose states a "Last 96" rather than 94. As only one pulled out, should that be 95? It needs explanation.
  • General note: there's nothing here about the legacy of the match, i.e how it is regarded now, 36 years later. I imagine it has received more than its fair share of contemporary attention, particularly in light of Jimmy White's failure to win a world title. And it was a good final, I suspect there are sources covering this since the event itself.
  • What does "Qualifying" mean in the prize money? Is that £450 for everyone who qualified through qualifiers? £450 for everyone who participated in qualifiers? If the former, was that in addition to being knocked out at each round, i.e. if a qualifier was knocked out in last 32, did they get £450 and £2,200? I'm struggling to work out how it totals £200k as well.
    • BennyOnTheLoose - what does the source say mate? As far as I'm aware, all people who did not qualify earned £450. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lee Vilenski - All the sources I've seen say £200,000 total. (Including reports in The Times, e.g. on 5 April 1984; two snooker magazines; and Downer's 2019 Crucible Almanac.) Snooker Scene says "Qualifying round losers at Redwood Lodge received £450 each." I checked Cue World for June 1984 and that says "Losers in the qualifying round final received £450 each." which I think means it was only the final qualifying round losers who got the £450. Cue World also mentions that Jim Donnelly received £1,000 for the highest break in qualifying. It adds to £200k if there were 16 players awarded £450 each and the £15k for the maximum is excluded...but the total £200k is mentioned before anyone knew whether there would be a maximum. (44000+22000+(2x12700)+(4x6600)+(8x4350)+(16x2200)+(16x450)=195,000. Then 4000 plus 1000 for highest breaks.) I'll add in the £1k for highest break in qualifying to the article. I don't know the best way to handle the apparent discrepancy in total announced prize money and the amount that could actually have been awarded if there has been a maximum. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 78 competitor " should be hyphenated.
  • You mention Parrott and Foulds like our readers should already know who they are and what the significance of their results in qualification are. I wouldn't make that assumption.
    • We already mention them in the paragraph above it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is Parrott and his provenance mentioned (for example)? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • "John Parrott progressed after winning three rounds, beating Dennis Hughes 10–3, Clive Everton 10–2 and the 1978 World Snooker Championship runner-up Perrie Mans 10–0." - I'm not making a claim that they are specifically notable, simply that they did well in qualifying. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, so for the avoidance of doubt, you're just cherry-picking (say) Parrott because he won two matches and a third against a runner-up? P.S. Turns out McLaughlin is linked to two different targets in the qualifying section, hence one of them is red... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can see if Benny has anything extra we can add. I'd be interested to see how Mario Morra,Roy Andrewartha and Warren King say qualfied from all three rounds. Probably covered in snooker scene Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • A significant proportion of what little coverage there is of qualifying in sources is about Parrott, presumably as he was seen as a hot prospect at the time. Nearly all of the press coverage of qualifying is basically results and "will now play..." (Probably not helped by it being at the same time as, and therefore competing for column inches with, the end of the 1984 Irish Masters, some 1984 Professional Snooker League matches, and part of the 1984 Women's Grand Prix.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Losers in the qualifying rounds received £450." ah, this seems to be in the wrong section. But show me how it all adds up to exactly £200,000 too!
  • "One player, Canadian John Bear, was scheduled to play but did not" no need to say "one player".
  • "made their World Championship debuts" in qualifying or by qualifying?
  • "Matches in the first round took place from 21 to 26 April.[17] The matches ..." Matches ... The matches... repetitive.
  • "were played between the seeded players, and qualifiers with each match played" odd comma placement, and "played" repetitive.
  • You link "ranking" in the lead but not in the article, and it's not really explained that this means they earned "ranking points".
  • "played professional snooker part-time" isn't that an oxymoron?
    • Nope. Being a professional player doesn't mean they play full-time. (arguably Ronnie O'Sullivan and even Stephen Hendry are doing this right now). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason the ProQuest sources don't have URLs so they can be more easily verified?
    • I'm not an expert, Benny might know more. Regardless, the newspapers are there to satisfy V. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When surnames are unique, there's no need to continually repeat first names.
    • I've gone through the article, I think I've done these all now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " each be played over three sessions taking place from 26 to 30 April" feels odd, the three sessions didn't take place over five days. The round took place over five days, the three sessions took place within those five days.
  • "13–5 after leading 6–4" I guess this is to reflect winning seven of the last eight frames but that's a bit subtle so I'd explain it plainly
  • "then Parrott won" before.
  • "in the fifties" all "in the 50s" or does this mean breaks of 50 or more? I can verify it.
    • I suspect they were all between 50-60, but that would suggest 50+ so I've changed this Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "jaws" is linked but not "pocket"?
  • QFs is covered in one para, seems brief compared to the SF section which is about three times the size.
  • "found himself 3–5 down" a little colloquial, I'd stick to the fact that Griffiths then won the next five, rather than Davis somehow "finding himself" (like a mystery novel) 5-3 down.
  • "just one frame in the first five frames" repetitive use of frame.
  • "White one frame from victory, Stevens won the next two frames, but White won frame 30 with a break of 44.[36] White..."" White White White...
  • "third Triple Crown final," Triple Crown isn't linked or explained.
  • " first session to lead 6–1, and extended his lead to 12–4 at the end of the second session" repetitive, and that's 16 frames covered in a single sentence. You do much more on other matches leading up to the final, is there literally nothing of note in those first 16 frames of the final?
  • " to become the first player " perhaps "to win 18–16 and become..."?
  • " seed.[1][49][17]" numerical order.
  • No indication what bold player names means.
  • Having thought about it, it now seems odd that the Qualifying tree appears after all of the rest of the article. Is there a reason that it doesn't feature in the qualifying section?
    • I think we'd have to start up a bit of an RfC for that one. Personally, I prefer the results to all be in one section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • But in reverse order??! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, this is quite consistent with all other snooker articles. I don't think I'd mind either way, but I would be surprised if this didn't get immediately reverted without a wider discussion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I understand it's consistent with other articles but that doesn't make it correct. Why would we place qualifying results after the main tournament results, and way away from the main "qualifying" section? I'm asking here for the logic of that placement to be explained because right now I can't follow it. Articles like this are generally chronological so the qualifying results should be in the qualifying section, certainly not after the final results section. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have just gone ahead as BOLD and made the change. I'll look to create a RfC when this has been closed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian Williamson is unnecessarily disambiguated.
  • Eddie McLaughlin (snooker player) is redlinked, but Wayne Sanderson isn't linked at all. What's the criteria here?
    • We only link to players that are likely to be notable. That generally means those players who have been professional. Benny is currently working through making articles for all players who have played on the tour, so shouldn't be a redlink for long! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have on a first run. I think most of them are easily dealt with but the "legacy" of the match needs much more coverage as far as I can see. For example, I imagine White and Davis both mention this in their autobiographies, so that should be covered. Who was favourite to win, what did commentators and the players say after the match? Etc etc. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Benny, was there any post-match conferences? I've added a little on what the players went on to do, specifically about White, but needs a little more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to confirm, Benny, there's only two things I have outstanding from above - is there anything additional for the qualifiers that covers a few more players? Also, have you got anything further for the legacy section. Also, how did the prize money work? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll have another look for info about qualifying, but generally there was a lot less press coverage available pre-1985 than post 1985. (e.g. NewsBank has 45 or 55 snooker articles each calendar year for 1982 to 1984; 292 for 1985; and over 600 articles a year for the rest of the 80's.) For legacy, I've got Davis's latest autobiography (signed by him in-person!) and coincidentally I picked up White's 2015 one from the library last weekend. I also have some other stuff that may help. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added an additional paragraph (and a bit) regarding the legacy TRM, is this the sort of thing you are looking for? I'm yet to find much particularly notable about the commentary team, but I've added bits on the competitors post-match comments, as well as their futures, and even a little on Jimmy's drug use (might be too far, a little tangental?) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a look at this today. I can see several issues in the refs (e.g. inconsistent ISBN formats, publisher names in article titles, inconsistent author name format, etc) so those will all need to be resolved too. I'll try to list them out later. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man - I removed the Guardian ProQuest links as there were no urls and access to that database is quite difficult (e.g. for me I need to be on-site at the British Library), whereas there are other easier ways to get access to old Guardian articles - e.g. via newspapers.com. I'm thinking that I should probably also remove all the "via The Times Digital Archive" statements, as, without a url, that info is not very useful. What do you think? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  • General - yeah, if you’re not linking to the archive, not sure you need the "via" in each case.
  • Ref 2 - Can you demonstrate how snookerdatabase.co.uk is RS?
    • Not sure if it has ever been discussed, but as a database these usually have limited reliability - it's not really citing much, so I have removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3 - Consistent ISBN format throughout.
  • Ref 4 etc - Clive Everton has an article so can be authorlinked.
  • Now linked at first instance.
  • Ref 4 vs Ref 5 vs Ref 6 etc - format of "Snooker Scene" is inconsistent.
  • Ref 2 vs Ref 14 vs Ref 18 - inconsistent snookerdatabase format.
    • There is now just one reference, regarding players' debuts at the competition. Looking for an alternative. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've swapped that reference out for one from the Liverpool Echo. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19 etc - Crucible Almanac has no publisher, ISBN etc.
  • Refs 25, 52 - can you demonstrate that cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk is RS?
    • This one is discussed a lot. The site itself was written by Chris Turner (now sadly deceased), a noted "snooker historian"[2], [3], [4], was the statistician for Eurosport for many years. Various conversations about the reliability of the source have been discussed at WT:SNOOKER, but never really come up to much of a consensus. What I do see, is that this source is used almost as a defacto resource for results across wikipedia, so we may need to look further into this. My experience is that we take into account where else the author has written when discussing reliability of the source itself. Happy to look for a replacement if not suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 29 - just checking, no author information?
  • I had a look, no byline. Added |author=Staff writer(s); no by-line. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45 vs Ref 1 - you have Global Snooker in non-italics but World Snooker in italics, what’s the logic?
  • Ref 46 etc - this is via Google newspapers?
  • Ref 50 - suddenly a publisher is linked!
    • These have all now been linked. Personally, I prefer to not link any of these, but so long as it is consistent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 56 - no need for website title in ref title.
  • Ref 56 - publisher, why not consistent, i.e. BBC Sport?
    • I think Benny already mentioned this, but not all refs are BBC sport, some are for the BBC itself, and have been denoted as such. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 57 - no need for website title in ref title.
  • Ref 58 - no need for website title in ref title.
  • Ref 59 - any reason this isn’t Sporting Life?
  • Ref 60 - no need for website title in ref, and is that really just BBC or is it BBC Sport?
  • Amended. The page is branded as BBC Two rather than BBC Sport, so I think BBC is OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 63 - can link author, and should be pp. 78–81. And it should be Second Wind.
  • Ref 65 - is that in German, if so language=German
  • Ref 66 - if using "snooker.org", that’s presumably a website, so italics.

The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Ref 6 and ref 29 need consistency.
  • ISBNs still not formatted consistently.
  • I suggest if you link each work/publisher each time, you should link each author (where possible) each time.
  • Done (for Everton, I don't think any of the unlinked authors have Wikipedia pages). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25 and ref 50 need consistency.
  • Ref 62 needs an en-dash.
  • Ref 54 is definitely BBC Sport, not BBC.

The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then, I think I'm done here. Really good work both Lee Vilenski and BennyOnTheLoose, happy to support this now. Oh, and I might submit this paltry offering to the WikiCup if it's deemed suitable... Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Image use and licence are OKish, as are their locations. ALT text is so-so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Please work with Jo-Jo Eumerus to determine what can be improved here and polish it up. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely Jo-Jo Eumerus, could you be a little more specific? I'm a little shaky on what things should/should not go under commons licenses. There's three images in the article, so I've tried to add what I can (and I had missed an ALT, which I've amended.) Anything that I need to do, let me know. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I am a little uncertain too. The thing with the ALT text here is that "Photo of " is arguably unnecessary; ALT text doesn't need to describe the image, just provide the same essential information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No issues, in that case, I have removed these from the alt text. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was there anything else Laser brain or Jo-Jo Eumerus? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 October 2020 (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/1984_World_Snooker_Championship/archive1&oldid=985104250"