Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 10 July 2020 [1].

1985 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC), BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the most well known snooker tournament of all-time. The Snooker World Championship dates back to 1927, but the 1985 event was the first to have drugs testing and a prize fund of £250,000. Three-time and defending champion Steve Davis had become a dominant player by the time of the event, and reached the final, where he played Northern Irishman Dennis Taylor. In a first-to-18 frames final, Davis took an 8-0 lead, but Taylor made a comeback after the first day to trail 8-9. The final became very close, and went to 17-17. Davis went ahead in the deciding frame, with Taylor needing the remaining four balls to win the final. Both players missed shots on these balls, but Taylor potted the final ball to win the tournament and his only world championship.

The final finished after midnight watched by 18.5 million viewers, holding the record for the highest television audience on BBC Two and for any UK broadcast after midnight to date. Alongside BennyOnTheLoose, I've put a lot of work into this one, so I look forward to any comments you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:1985_World_Snooker_Championship_book_cover.jpg needs a more expansive FUR and a more specific source, and is it a book cover or a poster? Tag doesn't match description. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added some more info for the FUR, and a full link to the page source. It's strictly speaking neither, it's an event programme. I suppose it is closer to a book cover, so I've changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Betty Logan (support)[edit]

Please bear with me on this. I will be looking at this over the next few days and will be periodically updating my comments. Betty Logan (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body
  • The lead looks fine overall although the following sentence could do with some sort of punctuation between the bolded words: ...and was the ninth consecutive World Snooker Championship to be held at the Crucible the first event taking place in 1977.
  • this was Davis' third world championship having also won the title in 1981 and 1983. – I understand this, but it could be slightly ambiguous. A "third world championship" could be misinterpreted as implying that it is the third time Davis had competed in the world championship. Maybe something on the following lines would remove the ambiguity: this was Davis' third world title, having also won in 1981 and 1983.
  • 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. – I think "previous" is the wrong choice of word here. The rankings were technically for the current season (even though the points themselves came from the preceding two seasons).
  • Bill Werbeniuk (seeded 14th) had not won a single match all season, but defeated Joe Johnson 10–8 and scored a 143 break in the tenth frame – the third-highest break at the championship to date. – This is ambiguous wording. A reader could take "to date" to mean 2020, and they could interpret it to mean just the 1985 Championship. The timeframe and Championship chronology needs to be made explicit.
  • With only a few shots left to play to win the match, Reardon borrowed Fagan's cue for the victory. – Is there any backstory to this or was Reardon just larking around?
    • I think he broke it - BennyOnTheLoose as I'm still waiting on TWL, is there more details? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reardon was around 50 points ahead and safe in the last frame when his cue tip came off. He would have been given 15 minutes to re-tip it, but Fagan offered the use of his own cue instead. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davis won the second session to lead 10–6, but looked back and lost frame 17. Griffiths committed a waistcoat foul, allowing Davis to win the frame and (eventually) win 13–6 to reach his fourth World Championship semi-final. – A couple of problems here. First, this comes across as WP:JARGON. Can't we just explain in simple English how Davis lost the frame? Second, if Davis led 10–6 and lost the 17th frame, wouldn't this have taken Griffith's frame score to 7? Yet the final score is stated to be 13–6. This needs to be cleared up.
    • Benny could you quantify this for me? I think it was that Davis needed a couple snookers but was helped with the waistcoat foul. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was 10-6 to Davis at the end of the second session. In the 17th frame, Davis made a break of 80 after the foul by Griffiths. (The frame score ended up being 84-6 to Davis so he hadn't needed snookers.) Davis won all three frames in the third session to go from a 10-6 lead to a 13-6 win.(Snooker Scene, June 1985, p.15; Guardian, 24 April 1985, p.26.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reardon won all five frames of the third session (seven in a row) to lead 12–9, and Parrott won the next three frames to force a deciding frame. – Presumably this is a mistype? I think that should probably read "the first five frames"
  • The session was called interesting by Clive Everton of The Guardian, however, due to the "high quality of the tactical play." – I think this would read better if "called" was replaced with "described as".
  • He compiled his 100th century break at the Crucible, a 106 break in frame 13. – I think this needs to be double checked. According to our articles Davis made two in 1980, three in 1981, two in 1983, one in 1984 and three in 1985, for a grand total of eleven. I think that should read 10th.
    • No, I think this is the 100th overall. I'll clarify Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lee Vilenski: Actually I just took a look at the source used for this, and the section is called "Crucible milestone centuries", so it's highly likely the 100th century at the Crucible. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Lee Vilenski: I reworded this sentence a couple of days ago, but I think I was wrong. I had understood it to mean that Davis compiled his 100th career century in this match, but I now agree with Armbrust that it must have been the 100th century ever compiled at the Crucible rather than Davis's personal milestone. Hence, the original wording: "He compiled his 100th century break at the Crucible..." was also wrong. This tweet might also bear this out... "I've just heared that they not gonna show the '85 final,but the 100th Crucible century,that also was made that year" although of course we can't use that as a source! Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The image caption in the same section speaks about career century break. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, of course, it is referring to career centuries. The fact that it confused me means it could confuse other readers though, so it needs to be clarified. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restarting the match, Davis took the eighth frame and was leading in frame nine but missed a thin cut on the green ball which was later considered the turning point of the match – The match resumed, not restarted.
  • Davis also lost the following year's final, this time to qualifier Joe Johnson – I am pretty sure this is incorrect. According to 1986 World Snooker Championship Johnson was 16th seed.
  • If the defending champion was ranked outside the top 16 in the world rankings as an automatic qualifier – I have read this note over several times and it doesn't make any sense to me. I know what it is meant to say (that if the defending champion is ranked outside the top 16 then they still automatically qualify). I am not sure the note is even necessary here. The only time I know of that this has happened is in 2006.
    • Clarified. I'm not sure it's so much of an issue being here. That's why it's a note, rather than in the prose, as it doesn't effect the article, but worth clarifying. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Betty Logan - is there anything further? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No I give my full support to its promotion. Great job Lee and Benny. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially unreliable sources

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I intend to start reviewing this by tomorrow. Feel free to ping me if I forget. epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 16 of whom reached the main stage, where they met the 16 invited seeded players. - this is not a complete sentence, but it's preceded by a semicolon. Maybe the semicolon should be changed to a comma.
  • The match, often referred to as the "black ball final" - this specific quoted text only appears in the lead.
  • this was Davis' third world championship win, having also won the title in 1981 and 1983. - seems like this is a dangling modifier, as it appears from the wording that the world championship win also won the title in 1981 and 1983. But "also won the title in 1981 and 1983" applies to Davis, so it should be rephrased.
  • the tests were proposed by WPBSA board member Barry Hearn. - is there a particular reason?
    • The source says "Rumours of drug-taking preceded the association's decision to start tests." Hearn is quoted as saying, of testing, "It was the best thing to do for the image of the sport." (title=Drug snooker tests can't detect |author=Foster, Jonathan |author2=Hale, Janice |work=The Observer |date=14 April 1985 |page=3). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event had a total prize fund of £250,000, an increase of £50,000 in the total prize pool from the previous year, and the winner received £60,000, an increase of £16,000 from the previous year - is it standard to include increases in prize funds? Is there a reason why, or do prize funds just change from year to year?
    • It's quite normal. There isn't all that much you can comment on a prize fund, other than what it is, and how it equates to similar events. Nothing is particularly made public as to why it is more - most likely because of sponsorship, and TV rights. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 16 winners from the fifth (and final) - does this need the parentheses?
  • aged 71 and eight-time champion between 1948 and 1956 - interesting. Is there a maximum age limit for contestants?
    • There is not. It's a completely open event (other than being of sufficient quality to appear in the qualification rounds. Seniors, women and junior players have all appeared in the qualifiers. (Seniors in snooker is actually 40s and over, and we've had players over that age win the main championships, (see Mark Williams in 2018.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Daily Star series of articles about drug abuse from within the championship was based on statements reportedly by Silvino Francisco. - this seems like it's related to the drug tests
  • Davis made a break to 80 win the frame - is this missing a word (e.g. 80 to win the frame)?

More later. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was there more Epicgenius? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'll leave some more comments today. epicgenius (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the 2010 World Snooker Championship, to celebrate 25 years since the event, - would it be better to say "to celebrate the 25th anniversary"?

@Lee Vilenski: Actually, I guess this is it. epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Rodney Baggins[edit]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get this ready for you. I've done some copyediting – I hope you've had chance to look through the changes I've made and that you're OK with it all. These are my outstanding observations and suggestions:

Lead
  • "the first tournament taking place" > "the first tournament having taken place" (tense)
  • (thought we weren't linking £ sign any more?)
  • "took an early 8–0 lead" — this might be misleading as the first session had 7 frames, maybe better to just say "won the first eight frames of the match" ?
  • "The final frame was contested over the final black ball" > "The 35th frame was contested over the final black ball" (rm final/final rep)
  • "After both players missed, Taylor potted the black" > "After both players missed the black twice, Taylor potted the ball" ? otherwise it sounds like they both missed it ONCE which is not accurate
Overview/Format
  • "before spreading to" unfortunately puts me in mind of a virus, would it be possible to change that to "before being introduced to"?
  • The draw for the tournament was made at the Savoy Hotel in London > (do we need to say when?)
  • Shouldn't seed be linked at first mention? > "progressed into the main draw to play the top 16 seeds"
  • Don't we need to link 1984–85 snooker season? (and use en dash)
  • "Four players made their world championship debuts, all through the qualifying event" — sounds odd, as if they all made their debuts right the way through the qualifying event, or throughout the qualifying event — could change to "...by way of the qualifying event" or even just "...via the qualifying event" or "all via qualifying" or some such alternative wording.
Semi-finals
  • Would it be best to change "Reigning champion" to "Defending champion" here for consistency/accuracy?
  • The picture of Steve Davis in this section is misleading as it's clearly him as an older man so I don't think it's a good idea to include it.
  • "Although Reardon had won previous matches" > "Although Reardon had won his previous matches" (i.e. the ones he'd played earlier in this competition, rather than just some arbitrary previous matches)
  • I don't get this sentence: "Reardon was the oldest World Championship semi-finalist, but failed to play at the level he had played against Parrott." as the two clauses don't really relate to one another. Just because he was the oldest WC semi-finalist doesn't mean he would be expected to play at the level he had played against Parrott! I'd change it to something like: "Reardon, the oldest World Championship semi-finalist, failed to play at the level he had played against Parrott." (plus maybe put it higher up before the strong safety play sentence)
  • Also might be best to say oldest-ever WC semi-finalist otherwise it might sound as if he was just the oldest of the four semi-finalists in 1985!
Final
  • Not sure about cuegloss links for "thin cut" — should we be linking feather as there is no cuegloss link specifically for "thin cut"!
    • I always though feather was to do with the stroke of the cue ball!Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • the WPBSA rules say "A stroke is made when the striker strikes the cue-ball with the tip of the cue, except whilst addressing the cue-ball (known as feathering)". I think feather in the Cue Sports Glossary is North American usage - maybe "thin cut" here ? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I chose to link to "feather" because the glossary describes it primarily as "A very thin cut shot" which is what we are describing here, but it doesn't say anything about it being an American term, hence my confusion. I think Benny's "thin cut" suggestion is good, but wouldn't we need to explain what is meant by "thin"? Maybe the glossary entry needs a bit of clarification. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although he had not been ahead at any point during the game," irrelevant in context of him waggling his finger & kissing the trophy. Just say "After potting the final ball, Taylor raised his cue stick, "waggled" his finger and kissed the winner's trophy." Maybe "Taylor had not been ahead at any point during the match." could be worked in somewhere else?
  • I've identified some problems with the details in the Final table (Main draw section) as explained on Talk page
Misc
  • In Century breaks section, I've added wikilinks for all four championships (1979/1982/1983/1981) even though they are already linked higher up in article, because I thought it likely that reader might want to check out the events directly off the information presented here.
  • In the Qualifying tables, what does "scr" stand for in place of score when the other player gets a walkover? Scratched? Would w/d be better here?

Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodney Baggins did you have anything further? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee. I've had another look through and I'm happy to support the article. Just some final points that you might want to look at:
  • Lead: "the 16 invited seeded players" > does Seed (sports) need to be linked in here as it's the first mention of the word in whole article? It's a special term that's linked for the purposes of clarity in Format section, so should probably also be linked in lead section for same reason, as other links are repeated from lead at first mention in body, e.g. Crucible Theatre, etc.
Indeed it should. For reference, WP:OL seperates links in the lede and the body. So, if it's suitable for a link, it should be linked in both the lede, and the body (but not twice in the lede, or twice in the body). Execptions are things like tables, graphs and image captions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "The winner received £60,000, which was the highest amount ever received by the winner of a snooker event." > "The winner received £60,000, which at the time was the highest amount ever received by the winner of a snooker event." (otherwise it says that's the all-time highest winner's prize!)
I think this made more sense before we removed a sentence before it - clarified. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second round: "his cue tip came off" > "his cue tip broke off"?
  • I'm not sure I agree (although, I don't have the source, it could say broke), cue tips are generally glued to the end of the cue. We should follow what the source says here, as it's possible it simply came apart. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (?) Semi-finals: The image caption has been bugging me as it's quite long and the fact that he reached the final is implicit in that he beat Reardon in the semi-finals. Maybe reduce to "Defending champion Steve Davis (pictured in 2007) defeated Ray Reardon in the semi-finals, completing the 100th Crucible century break."
  • (?) Final: We have "[Taylor] was never ahead at any point" in 2nd para, and "Taylor was not ahead at any point during the match" in 3rd para, which is a bit repetitious. I'd just change "ahead" to "in the lead" for one of these.
  • (general) Davis' or Davis's...? It turns out this should really be Davis's per MOS:POSS which says that you should add 's after proper names that already end with an s. I guess it's so it sounds like normal speech / more natural if reading aloud?
I didn't realise there was a distinction! Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lee. I think you missed a couple (points 4 & 5 above) or did you dismiss them? Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Armbrust[edit]

According to both sources in the "Century breaks" section, the highest break of the 1979 championship was 142. (The Snooker.org reference need to be rearchived too). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to page 21 of the Crucible Almanac (2012) the final had 7 frames in the 1st sesssion, 9 in the 2nd, 8 in the 3rd and 11 in the 4th. Thus the table for the final is wrong. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated this since your comments in the talk page Armbrust. 11 frames for the final session is ridiculous though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Maybe, but that's how the four sessions of the final were between 1984 and 1996 (7-9-8-11). (In 1980 & 1981 it was 9-9-8-9, in 1982 & 1983 8-9-8-10, between 1997 & 2010 8-8-8-11, and since 2011 8-9-8-10). And this also doesn't take into account that slow play. (In 2006 there were a maximum of 13 frames to be played in the last session, but only 10 were necessary.) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Armbrust: After doing some rewording, I've removed the failed verification tag you added about prize money. In Guinness Snooker – The Records (p.86), Everton writes that it was "the game's richest ever first prize - £60,000." Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Armbrust thanks for taking a look at this - was there anything else you wanted me to clarify/change? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

@Betty Logan: have the source concerns been met? @Nikkimaria: Have your image concerns been dealt with? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The sourcing is of a high quality now. There is nothing here causing me any concern. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Attention to WP:NBSP needed.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of things require the non-breaking space? I thought we had been through the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Things like 15 seeds, 103 entrants, 32 participants ... samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and promote and trust that @Lee Vilenski: will fix the nbsp issues. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:39, 10 July 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/1985_World_Snooker_Championship/archive2&oldid=967073582"