Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2015 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2021 [1].

2015 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC), User:BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the 2015 edition of the World Snooker Championship. One of the more unlikely winners of the event (at the time), it was won by Stuart Bingham, who defeated 2005 champion Shaun Murphy in the final. With the scores tied at 15-15, Bingham won the next three to win his first (and to date only) world championship. Both players performed poorly at the event until 2021, when Bingham lost on a deciding frame to Mark Selby in the semi-finals, and Murphy lost to Selby in the final.

I've had a lot of fun times working on this article, I hope you enjoy reading it. Let me know your thoughts.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Girth Summit[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • "...professional snooker tournament, that took place..." I don't think the comma is needed there (and GtM will attest that I am generally liberal with my commas), and I think it ought to be 'which' rather than 'that'.
  • "...at the Crucible and this was the final..." Is 'this' needed? Perhaps a comma before 'and'?
  • "...a total of 86 century breaks, a record for the championships and higher than 83 centuries set in 2009." I can see what you're doing here, but I don't think the reader needs to be told that 86 is higher than 83. Consider rewording.
    • I've reworded. I do think as the lede is a bit short, that it's not worth removing the amount of centuries in 2009 (it is important), but reworded to make it easier to read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overview[edit]
  • "...by defeating countryman Ronnie O'Sullivan..." Do you mean fellow countryman?
    • I mean I suppose. I have changed. I'm not sure why it needs to be both words though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Defending champion Mark Selby was seeded 1, while other seeded places were allocated based on the latest world rankings." This is repetitive - we were told this exact same information in the paragraph above the prize fund information.
Summary[edit]
  • "Mark Selby, who had led 6–3 and 8–4 against Maflin before his opponent won four consecutive frames narrowly escaped a first-round exit, recovering from 8–9 down to clinch a 10–9 win." I think that at the least you need a comma after 'consecutive' to close the parenthetical relative clause. I'll leave it to your judgment as to whether four X–Y scorelines in a single sentence is difficult for the reader to get their head around.
  • "Ali Carter, back at the Crucible after extensive treatment for cancer," We were told about the cancer two paragraphs ago.
    • Indeed, I've reworded to say more info on this. Previously we mention the cancer to explain why he was playing in the competition, so now I've added that he had missed five months of the season, which explains why he might be rusty or w/e Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Selby succumbing to the Crucible curse. Selby was the 16th first-time champion who failed to defend his title since the tournament moved to the Crucible in 1977." Do you think it might be better to reword this a bit, perhaps rearranging the order in which the information is presented? As phrased, it's not explicitly clear what the Crucible Curse is. I'm thinking of something like "McGill won the match 13–9, making Selby the 16th first-time champion who failed to defend his title since the tournament moved to the Crucible in 1977, succumbing to what has become known as the 'Crucible curse'."
  • "...and three from Hawkins, the match again equalled the record for the most centuries in..." Why 'again'?
  • "The final was refereed for the first time by Olivier Marteel..." Is 'for the first time' redundant? (You tell us in the next sentence that it made him the first Belgian to referee a final, so it's safe to assume it was a first for him too).
    • I don't think so. I think we start by saying that it's his first time, and then comment that he was also the first Belgian person to do so. People can also change nationality. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bingham came close to a maximum break," Being a bit picky, but the source says that he was on for a maximum break, not that he came close to it.
Footnotes[edit]
  • Shouldn't there be a 'notes' section, rather than having the footnotes appear in the References section?
  • There's a space between the refs in the first footnote.

That's it from me. Girth Summit (blether) 17:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

Hi The Rambling Man, sorry for the ping - did you have any comments for me? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. And yes, of course, I'll bring comments. As you know, I'm working on other things to try to catch up on the 900-point deficit, so everything else is de-prioritised until then. There's a waaaaay to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go, and apologies, this literally did fall off my to-do list.

  • "referred to as the 2015 Betfred World Snooker Championship" for sponsorship reasons/purposes. A lot of people will never have heard of Betfred.
    • I've added an discription when we mention them fully in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sponsored the event ... sponsored the tournament" repetitive.
  • "Qualifying for the event took place between..." I've never really noticed this before but this kind of implies that everyone who went into the event had to qualify there, and that's simply not the case. This needs a quick addition of the top 16 or whatever automatically qualified in here.
    • I have added it. Let me know what you think, it might be a bit off. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mark Selby ... Selby ... Selby ..." repetitive.
  • "Shaun Murphy the 2005 winner met" commas around "the 2005 winner".
  • "a 50–1 outsider" maybe expand a touch, like "who was given odds of 50–1 to win the tournament by bookmakers before the start of the tournament"? Some people may have no idea what 50–1 means nor its significance.
  • "for the championships" plural?
    • Removed, although arguably it is championships, as in there being many events, but this is probably better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "championships, the most previously being 83 centuries" ->" championship, beating the 83 scored in..."?
  • "sport was played" perhaps "originally" played?
  • " a single elimination format" another thing I may have missed, is there a reason that "single elimination" isn't hyphenated like our article?
    • Changed, although I wonder if our article is titled wrongly, I'm no English expert though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The event's 32 players" repetitive 32. Could be something like "The player participating in the championship are..."
  • "won by Joe Davis, the final being" maybe another thing, "who secured victory at ... defeating X by A-B frames" to give context to the nature of the game back in the day?
    • I'd probably go along with this, but I've had people tell me this is too much, see David Fuch's comments below. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which had previously sponsored" again, repetitive.
  • "in Sheffield, England" you mentioned Sheffield in the previous section but link it here?
  • "of 11 rankings events" link for "rankings events"?
  • "England's Mark Selby won" this implies some kind of allegiance with England. As we know the WSC is nationality-agnostic. Englishman would perhaps be less "team-oriented"?
    • Sure. Done, I only started using this when it was like Scotsman X beat Englishman Y, which is a bit repetitive to me.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It featured a 32-player main draw " feels a bit repetitive, that we've said 32 players at least twice at this stage.
    • Actually once, and I've removed that version, as it's not always been 32. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "played at the 8 and 15 April 2015" lead said it was between those dates (implying a tournament that didn't take place on two separate days), so be consistent in the terminology.
  • "8 and 15 April 2015 at the Ponds Forge International Sports Centre" that has a slightly different target to the one in the lead.
  • "start of the main draw" do you mean the main tournament? Or did the actual draw take place on the same day as the start of the final tournament?
  • "from a challenge match system" suggest this needs a footnote, not clear what a "challenge match" system is here, especially without a link.
  • "in the latest world rankings automatically" latest when, just before the start of the 2015 championship, not now.
  • "Mark Selby was" any need to repeat his first name?
  • "penultimate event of the season" well the lead said the WSC was the final "ranking" event, so was the China Open the penultimate "ranking" event too? Do we need to be explicit?
    • Well, the snooker world rankings don't always update after each event; the China open could have been the third from last event, so penultimate is suitable to comment on. It was both the penultimate ranking, but also the penultimate event in general, so no need to comment on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ranked 17–32" English, so 17 to 32.
  • "Despite losing 1–10 to Kurt Maflin, Davis ..." I'm not sure "Despite" is right here. Perhaps "Davis played his 100th match... losing..."?
  • " to Ken Doherty in " no need for Ken.

That's got me to Summary. Again, I do apologise for the delay, I know I said I was working on catching up but this had completely dropped off my list. Ping me when we're done here and I'll do the next couple of sections. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the snooker world rankings were" is overlinked in the lead now.
  • And at "the snooker world rankings prior to" too.
  • "at the chami were"?
  • "Ali Carter, who had" is there another Carter?
  • "led Selt" who is/was Selt?
  • "4–10. Neil Robertson compiled" overlinked and no need for first name if not ambiguous.
    • It is a bit ambigious, as Jimmy Robertson took part in the event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shaun Murphy, who declared" likewise.
  • "winning the 2005 tournament" could link.
  • "Graeme Dott defeated" overlinked/first name issue.
  • "against Stuart Carrington with a " ditto. And "a 109 break" might be better as "a break of 109".
  • "McGill were tied ... but McGill led 10–6 after ... McGill" three-peat.
  • "Stuart Bingham reached" link/name issue.
  • "defeat Graeme Dott" is there another Dott?
  • "for Ronnie O'Sullivan" same.
  • "Shaun Murphy over Joe Perry, and" Murphy over Perry
  • "Neil Robertson over Ali Carter." Robertson/Carter.
  • "Judd Trump defeated Hong Kong's Marco Fu 13" Trump defeated Fu.
  • You've already mentioned Fu, so back there would be better to call him "Hong Kong's Fu".

That's up to the QFs. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Rambling Man, looks like mostly the same issues over and over again. I should have looked a bit closer at duplinks. I'll update for the rest of the article. Thanks for taking a look. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

QFs onward...

  • (previous: "lost 4–10. Neil Robertson compiled" overlinked, can keep his first name however as it's ambiguous with Jimmy)
  • "Trump defeated Ding 13–4 " etc, previous rounds have had at least some kind of "running commentary" on how each session went, this is straight in with the result?
  • Same for "Murphy defeated the last remaining qualifier McGill 13–8 "
  • There seems to be a lot more to say, e.g. Bingham in tears after beating Ronnie, where the highest (equal) break of the tourney happened etc?
  • "champion Ken Doherty and" no need for Ken.
  • "and set a new record for a 25-frame match" for most centuries in a 25-frame match I assume you mean?
  • "longest frame in the tournament" that source is contemporary so it was the longest at that point in the specific tournament.
  • "and 29 April as the" no comma, vs "and 2 May, as the " comma.
  • "All four world championship semi-finalists were English.[52] Murphy was the only former winner of the event to reach the last four" fact attack, I would merge these, e.g. "of whom Murphy was..."?
  • "then extending it" extended.
  • Balance of the "semi-final" section seems off, the not-so-close encounter seems to have more than double the prose of the close encounter.
  • "was held on 3 and 4 May as the best of 35 frames, held over" held on, held over - variety please.
  • "won the title in 2005 with an" overlinked.
  • (previous: "Stevens, who had been defeated.." should be full name and link, and then delink/de-first name next instance).
  • "victory over Matthew Stevens and was" no need for Matthew.
  • "to John Higgins" no Alex here so no need for John.
  • "by Olivier Marteel, from" that article referencing this gives some insight into his previous experience, worth bringing that in here, i.e. which tournaments he'd previously ref'd.
    • Added a comment. The source mentions the World Grand Prix, but it's hardly the most important event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "session of the final, Murphy took a 3–0 lead, but Bingham fought back to end the session" session/session repeat.
  • I would think in the description of the final, century breaks would be worthy of note in the prose rather than just going in session-by-session scores.
  • "had odds of 50–1 to win" link odds, and was it all bookies giving those odds or just one or two or...?
    • Source doesn't say, I'd assume the tournament sponsor's odds, but I don't know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also probably worth some context, like how far down the list of likely winners did 50 to 1 make him? In a huge field, like golf or the Grand National, favourites can still be 10 to 1 etc, so how close was he to being favourite or was he a near-rank-outsider, or somewhere in between? Are there any odds stats for the final itself rather than just pre-tournament odds?
    • Not that I can find, (and we wouldn't cite the bookmakers themselves anyway) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The final was noted..." "break" appears in this sentence three times, along with the MOS conflict of comparable values in numbers and words.
  • "The 3 qualifying" three
  • "as the best-of-19 frames" you haven't hyphenated this before in the prose above.
  • Round 1 table seems to have an odd spare Player column in the middle??
  • "This was the highest in World Championship history, ahead of the 83 scored in 2009" you have already mentioned this.
  • "was due to donate" do you mean "pledged to donate"?
  • "achieved.[79][39]" order.
  • "and Stuart Bingham each" -Stuart.
  • Might be worth adding in parentheses how many century breaks each player got to save us counting them all up? I mean Neil Robertson scored loads and went out in the QFs. Will also help with cross-referencing that you covered all centuries in the total.
    • Outside of someone scoring a significant amount, it's rare for the amount to really matter - we just list the total and who scored them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have this link declaring when the "modern era" is considered to have started. That is someone's blog and is hosted by a sports equipment shop. Is there something more "solid" on which you can base this claim of a modern era starting?

Just the references left before a re-start. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looks like we've covered the above The Rambling Man Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee, I'll do my best to get to finish this first viewing tomorrow morning after I've dropped the kids at school. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder

  • (from earlier: "Neil Robertson compiled" overlinked)
  • "30 April 1 & 2 May" probably needs a comma after April here.
  • "Referee: Olivier Marteel.[62" he was linked earlier (albeit red) so why not here?
  • In the table, there are several rows called "Players" which are actually sessions, why are they called players?
Any thoughts on this one? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a fault with {{32TeamBracket-WSC2-v2}}, which I've changed now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article on Lü Chenwei has a diacritic on the u of Lu.
  • " Ford, Craig Steadman and David Morris each..." this is the first time their names appear in prose so should be linked here.
  • Linked (except Steadman, who gets a mention in the first round section). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1964–68" per MOS, 1964–1968.
  • "title at 43 in" do you mean aged 43? Standalone this note makes not much sense!

Refs

  • Ref 4 has publisher in the title.
  • So does ref 5.
  • And 6.
  • Why is worldsnooker.com in italics but snooker.org not? Consistent approach to website formats please.
  • Ref 21 has publisher in the title.
  • Ref 22 has World Snooker not in italics.
  • Ref 22 also has worldsnooker.com in italics as a website but that's not consistently used across all World Snooker refs.
  • If Eurosport and ESPN don't use italics, why does BBC Sport?
  • Ref 42 is missing author and publication date.
  • Ref 48 is missing author, as is 49, 50, 52, 61, 65 etc... best to check all the BBC Sport refs as they usually do.
  • Ref 58 needs en-dash in scoreline.
  • Ref 68 has publisher in the title, but then again, the publisher of World Snooker is suddenly WPBSA here, and nowhere else? And that's the only wikilink in the references.
  • Snooker.org appears to be formatted differently in different places.
  • Hopefully all the ref issues from this section have now been resolved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all I have for the moment, you'll be glad to know! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from GhostRiver[edit]

  • "and the final ranking event" → "and was the final ranking event"
  • Some punctuation needed in the lede after "a total of 86 century breaks"
  • "2014-15 snooker season" needs an en dash – these get missed by the script, I run into the same issue with NHL articles
  • Perhaps the most pedantic point I plan to make, the reference to "Yahoo News" should be to "Yahoo! News"

Looks like GS did a thorough comb-through, so only a few comments from me! — GhostRiver 23:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

Comments as follows:

  • General:
    • As a non-snooker person, there were a few places I stumbled where I think it would more accessible to a layperson if things were explained rather than purely relying in wikilinks, for example:
      • What a century break actually is
      • what frames are
        • I get the need for these two, but they are particularly simple terms, and we do link them. A century break, being a break of over 100 seems quite logical, maybe there is a need for understanding what a break is. I can't really think of a better phrase than "points in one one attempt at the table", which is a bit wordy and doesn't really explain the term either. Frames are simply individual games, but a "frames (games)" is a little bit like telling someone to suck eggs Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, but if someone has to link away to learn what a term is, they're not coming back in all likelihood. You've got popups for hovering desktop users, but they're a distinct minority of readers these days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I get that, but it's such a basic term, I'd be really reticent to have "frames (games)" or similar on these articles, it would feel like saying "goals (points)" in football, or explaining what a touchdown is in American Football. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's some tense changes that I think should just be past tense (ie. "The breakdown of prize money for this year is show below" reads weird coming after "the prized fund [was] raised".
        • Sure, but this is saying that the breakdown of the prize money is listed in the article below. If you said "prize money from the event was shown below, it wouldn't be correct, and wouldn't read correct. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose:
    • Selby fell to the Crucible curse, It may just be me, but the phrasing here feels like it lends too much credence to the curse actually existing, and I think reads more plainly if you cut it in the lead and just say Selby lost 9-13 [...] to McGill, becoming the 16th first time champion" etc. (It works fine in the body IMO.)
    • Contrary to my considerations about accessibility above, I think the overview could be shortened a bit. Having an explanation of what snooker is is good, but I don't think the next two bits about its background are that relevant. Likewise the second paragraph talking about the championship structure is directly relevant, as is where it's currently held, and the previous year's titleholder, but I don't think the date of the first world championship or Hendry's record is that useful.
      • I'd disagree - and I generally ask for more background information in FACs. Having a good understanding of the event overall, such as how long it has been held for, and who has won it the most times gives prestige to the event. If you remove that, we could be talking about an event that is a year old, rather than one that's run for nearly 100 years. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think some of the background information is useful, but adding random names of people who aren't going to come up again and don't directly relate to this year's final I think are more confusing rather than more edifying. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sheffield is not linked in its first use, but in its second.
    • First-round debutants at the Crucible were England's Craig Steadman,[34] and Stuart Carrington,[35] Scotland's Anthony McGill,[36] and Norway's Kurt Maflin.[37] McGill and Carrington had both played at the Crucible before, in the Junior Pot Black in 2006.[38] I might be misunderstanding, but it seems like if McGill and Carrington had already played at the Crucible before they couldn't be first-round debutants there?
      • I have changed this, as it doesn't read well (some users say "The Crucible" as if that has some special meaning). Basically they reached the main stages of the event for the first time, which is played at the Crucible. Very few other events take place there, but one event is the Junior pot black (and senior world championships). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stevens had been defeated in the 2000 final by Williams, eliminated him at the 2015 event, completing a 10–2 victory comma splice
    • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • after Reardon who was 45 in 1978—we've heard how old Reardon was just before this so it doesn't seem relevant to restate it.
  • Media:
  • Images appear appropriately licensed and free.
  • References:
    • What makes Global Snooker Centre, Chris Turner's Snooker Archive, Inside Snooker, Global-Snooker.com, Snooker Scene, and Snooker.org high-quality reliable sources?
      • Global Snooker was run by Global Cue Sports Ltd and had an editorial roll. Chris Turner is a snooker historian who did work for both the BBC and Eurosport. Inside-Snooker is run and edited by Hector Nunns, who is still the BBC correspondant for snooker, Global-snooker.com I'm having some issues finding out who ran the site, but I know we generally consider it reliable for match/tournament results. I can replace as it's only used once if there's an issue, Snooker Scene is the longest running cue sports magazine in the world, ran by snooker journalist and author Clive Everton and snooker.org is a multi-award winning statistical site. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the one source that definitely cannot be claimed to be high-quality reliable in this instance is Global-Snooker.com and it should be removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to be inconsistency in the ref formatting regarding whether web sites are italicized/capitalized or whether they have the TLD appended or not.
    • Did a spot-check and didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or verification failures.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Without spot-checks. Sources are consistently formatted. Are WorldSnooker, StubHub, snooker.org reliable sources? Ditto for Grimsby Telegraph and Leicester Mercury. Not much else to say, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, World Snooker are the organisers, and in charge of professional snooker, so as reliable as it gets. Snooker.org is an award winning statistical site with an editorial roll. I'd probably agree about StubHub, so I've removed it. The last two are local newspapers, so will have editorial rolls, so I don't see an issue with these Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator request[edit]

Support from zmbro[edit]

  • Now I'm not knowledgable on this subject whatsoever, but just doing quick spotchecks on refs, prose, and images it looks more than ready to me. Happy to support. – zmbro (talk) 15:43, 14 October 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/2015_World_Snooker_Championship/archive1&oldid=1050294820"