Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Spencer (snooker player)/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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 2 December 2023 [1].

John Spencer (snooker player)[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins[reply]

This article is about three-time world snooker champion John Spencer. Spencer was noted for his cue action, which featured an unusually long backswing that provided immense cue power, allowing him to develop long-distance shots with deep screw and maximum side spin. According to Clive Everton in Billiards and Snooker magazine, Spencer's play in the 1969 World Snooker Championship final "justifiably caused gasps of amazement" from the audience. We previously worked on the article for Spencer's great rival Ray Reardon, which was promoted as a Featured Article just over a year ago. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Spencer-john.jpg: source link is dead, needs a more extensive FUR
  • File:Ray_Reardon.jpg: source file was deleted as lacking permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Nikkimaria. I've deleted the Reardon image from this article and from his article. I've expanded on the FUR for the Spencer image, but let me know if more is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • " the first year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible Theatre" - mention Sheffield here → (done)
  • I notice that in a couple of places you inflate amounts of money to current (ish) values, but in most places you don't..?
→ It looks as if the inflation conversions are mostly in the early career section (1967–1971), as I guess it's quite useful to put these seemingly small amounts of money from 50-odd years ago into context for today's audience. I think converting all the cash sums throughout would be overkill and unnecessary. The only other one I can find is at the end of the Declining health section, where it converts the £9K that Spencer got in Feb 1987, this being the most he ever earned from a single event during his career. Compared with some of the sums that the players are winning nowadays, £26,932 equivalent might seem paltry and worth a particular mention? That seems to be the logic used anyway, not sure if you agree? The latest available year that can be used with the inflation template for the UK is 2021 at the moment. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had suggested to Hendry that they play the next match in casual clothes, to which Hendry agreed, with the result that Spencer won their third encounter 6–4" - does the source really attribute the fact that he won to what he was wearing, as the wording suggests?
→ Benny can perhaps check this – maybe a subjective interpretation of the source material? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Burn has "Afterwards [Hendry] told his father that he thought it had been a set-up. '[Spencer] knew that if I was dressed casually', he said, 'I'd play casually.'" As this is Hendry's own account, perhaps a rewording would be in order. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Benny, nice bit of detail to add in. Have reworded/expanded. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the final stages of this event, he defeated then World Champion Joe Johnson 5–3" => "In the final stages of this event, he defeated then-World Champion Joe Johnson 5–3" → (done)
  • "he scored just 207 points against Bjorn L'Orange in the second round of qualifying, before losing the match 0–10" => "he scored just 207 points against Bjorn L'Orange in the second round of qualifying, losing the match 0–10" (the use of "before" is ambiguous and could be read as his having somehow scored 207 points before the match even took place → (done)
  • That's it, I think. An enjoyable read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noswall59[edit]

Yesterday, I noticed this article here and thought that Spencer's parentage should be included in this article; the information is in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Some details of his early life mentioned in the obituary in The Guardian were also absent. So I decided to add those details. I was then surprised to see today that these changes were reverted by Rodney Baggins, who suggested that improvements should be suggested here. I am not sure that's how this works, but I'd rather see the improvements included. So, here are my suggestions:

  • For the first sentence of "Early life", change "John Spencer was born on 18 September 1935 in Radcliffe, Lancashire.[1] He attended Stand Grammar School for Boys in Whitefield." to the following: "John Spencer was born on 18 September 1935 at Bealey Maternity Home in Radcliffe, Lancashire, the youngest child of William Spencer, a night watchman and bookkeeper's runner, and his wife Annie, née Bleakley." This can be cited to the ODNB article.
  • Replace "He started playing snooker on a full-sized table at the age of 14 and compiled his first century break aged 15." with the following: "John first played snooker on a makeshift table with tape for cushions and nails to mark out pockets, before his father introduced him to playing snooker on a full-sized table when the boy was aged 14. John compiled his first century break at the age of 15." This can be cited to The Guardian.

I have no further comments at this stage. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up, Noswall59. I wasn't sure where the material had come from, but will add it back in with ref tags. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Noswall59, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination for promotion? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Noswall59 and BennyOnTheLoose: and Gog the Mild; please have a look at the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. Because they cause problems in archives, and slow down the load time of the entire FAC page, templates like tq are avoided at FAC. I've switched out a few here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support by SMcCandlish[edit]

Overall it reads very well, seems comprehensive of the subject, properly sourced as far as I can tell. I don't see any criteria issues that need work. I wish more of our articles were like this. I made one typographic tweak a few days ago, but see no even trivial issues remaining, so am in support of the promotion. (Disclaimer: I am a participant in WikiProject Snooker, so I'm involved in the general topic area, though I did no significant work on this particular article.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SMcCandlish, it is good to get a specialist review. Should the coordinators take your comments as a support for promotion to FA status? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeps. I guess I should have boldfaced the "so am in support of the promotion", or put "Support" in the heading. I'm not a terribly frequent FAC visitor. PS: As for "specialist", I'm more of a pool than snooker editor within cue sports, but this certainly has everything I would expect from a snooker bio.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Having been open for a while now, this nomination has garnered only one general support, and the last activity was almost two weeks ago. Without substantial advancement towards a consensus favoring promotion over the next few days, I'm afraid there's a risk that the nomination may be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pawnkingthree[edit]

The article appears to be fully comprehensive and is of a similar quality to last year's Ray Reardon FAC in which I also participated. The only thing I might suggest is that the Daily Telegraph obituary fills in what he was doing after his national service and before returning to snooker - "a variety of jobs including labourer, van driver and betting office settler." Perhaps that could be added. But in any case, it's a support from me. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: Thank you for supporting promotion of this article. I'll add the material you mentioned. I also notice the DT obituary says he did his national service in the RAF, which is notable and worth adding in. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harrias[edit]

  • "..he started National Service at age 18, and did not play snooker again until he was 29." The way this is written, it makes it seem causal, ie that it was because of his National Service that he didn't play for 11 years, but there is no indication that this is the case; I'd suggest rephrasing.
  • I've now reworded the early years section to remove this implication, plus added a bit more detail. I hope it's OK now. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd swap the last sentence of the second paragraph with the first of the final paragraph. The second paragraph is mostly a list of his career highlights, and the sentence currently feels like it would fit well there. Similarly, the final paragraph deals with the end of his snooker career, and his post-playing life, and a sentence about his playing style feels like it would fit well there. But I'm not going to kick up a fuss either way, so feel free to leave as is if you think it works better.
  • This comment was superseded by major alterations to the lead section, but your suggested change has now been incorporated. Please can you check that the new version of the lead is OK. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..Spencer, Reardon, Owen and Bernard Bennett.." While I think it is obvious this refers to Gary, I think it would bear clarifying, as both Owen brothers have been mentioned already in the article. — (done)
  • "..against defending champion Pulman.." Try to avoid the false title here. — (done)
  • "The tournament that is recognised as the 1971 World Championship was in fact held in late 1970.." I think this is wordier than it needs to be; I think it could just be "The 1971 World Championship was in fact held in late 1970.." — (done)
  • "Historian Dominic Sandbrook.." Another false title. — (done)
  • "..even though he was feeling exhausted and ill after a major tour of Canada, and had been trapped in a lift ahead of one of the sessions, and involved in a minor car crash on the way to another." Recommend getting rid of the "and" at the start of the bit about the lift to improve the flow. — (done)
  • "He had also expended effort in beating Higgins 4–3 in the final of the Park Drive 2000 event the night before the first session of the World Championship final." This seems a weird thing to note given that Higgins was also his opponent in the World Championship final. Did Higgins not expend effort during the Park Drive 2000 event??
  • I agree. What do you think Benny? Was it your idea to note this, or was it specifically mentioned for some reason in the source? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree. (It is, however, supported by the source which says that Spencer's win in the Park Drive 2000 final "drained him dry", coming after his trip to Canada and his win against Charlton. Perhaps there's a bit of hyperbole in the source; in the next sentence, Everton writes that "Higgins played with a sense of destiny..." ) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his 2005 memoir, Spencer made clear that Higgins had produced the better snooker.." I'm not keen on this phrasing, as it seems to turn an opinion into a fact. Maybe rephrase to "Spencer made clear that he felt Higgins had produced the better snooker.." — (done)
  • "..he beat Thorburn 9–7 in the semi-finals.." Provide his full name and wikilink on this first mention of Thorburn. — (done)
  • "..the two inaugural Pontins events.." I'm not keen on the use of "the", which makes it sound like the reader should know what these are.
  • You might argue the same for any mention of an inaugural tournament, e.g. "he won the inaugural Irish Masters at Goffs Sales Room in County Kildare" which could equally look as if we expect the reader to know of the event. In fact, could you not use the same argument for any use of the definite article!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..of 25 points per frame.." This is the first time "points" have been mentioned in the article: could do with a wikilink. — (done)
  • "..to celebrate the firm's £8,000 investment into the sport in the 1973–74 season. Spencer took the £150 first prize.." Previously, you had provided modern equivalences for monetary values, but from here onwards you stop. Is there a particular reason for that?
  • Yes, as explained above in Comments by ChrisTheDude. I'm not keen on converting all of them, but for consistency we would have to use "all or nothing". Can discuss a better solution if required. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spencer's good form was not translated into positive results at the next two World Championships. In 1973, after showing decisive form in defeating David Taylor 16–5 and Williams 16–7, he lost by a single frame to Reardon in the semi-finals, 22–23." Two decisive victories followed by a narrow loss to a good player seems to be two positive results and an acceptable one. Possibly rephrase the opening sentence?
  • Have reworded. His good form in 1973 and 1974 (detailed in previous paragraph) wasn't quite good enough to bag the world title in 1973 and 1974 (as one might have expected), but was perhaps a bit unclear. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..but refused to blame his defeat on a dose of flu from which he had been suffering.." This gives the impression that Wikipedia's editorial voice is suggesting that his blame was because of the flu; please rephrase. — (done)
  • "..won the inaugural Masters event held at the West Centre Hotel in Fulham, West London." Add a comma after "event", to make it clear that it was the inaugural Masters event, not just the inaugural one hosted at the West Centre Hotel. — (done)
  • "..before defeating Reardon in the closest of finals." This sounds like journalese, try to rephrase it. — (done)
  • "..in one half of the draw, with Charlton himself in the other." As the sentence starts with the word "With", I think this "with" would be better changed to "and". — (done)
  • "..highest break of the tournament, a 138, in the.." Get rid of "a". — (done)
  • "..defeating Virgo.." Provide his full name and wikilink on this first mention of Virgo. (Currently done on his third, and last, mention.) — (done)
  • "The conditions were so hot that Spencer's chalk snapped in half when he tried to use it, because of an accumulation of moisture inside his breast pocket." This comma isn't necessary.
  • The meaning would change if you removed the comma: "he tried to use it because of an accumulation of moisture..." which is clearly wrong. I have found a better way to reword the whole sentence. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the 147 break stuff out of sequence? Why structure the article chronologically, but then have that out of place? It would even fit naturally between existing paragraphs: surely it would be better moved there?
  • I've now restructured the professional career section so that the unofficial 147 part can be more easily incorporated in the flow. I did provide a lengthy explanation for the previous layout but I can remove that now, as superseded/irrelevant. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was to be the last time the two players would face each other in a World Championship match." There is no need for this to be so convoluted: "This was the last time the two players faced each other in a.." Would be fine. — (done)
  • "..he startled the audience by lunging forward and striking over the cue ball in his initial address.." I'm a little confused by this: what did he strike above the cue ball? Surely there wasn't anything there to strike?
  • No idea. I don't have access to the source. Maybe he lunged because he felt faint or overwhelmed by the occasion? Maybe Benny can help here? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source talks about the audience but doesn't quite say anything to the effect that they were startled, and the rest is perhaps a bit too close to the source, which has "Spencer amused himself by lunging forward and hitting over the cue-ball as he addressed it to pot the final black but then settled down to make absolutely certain of the fifth maximum of his career." Looking through some of the press coverage from the time, including the Snooker Scene editor Clive Everton's report in The Guardian, all of which omits this, I tend towards removing this detail. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read the detail in the body of the article, I think the lead needs tweaking to match the article better. "..because the pockets on the table may not have met the required specifications." This gives the reader the impression that the pockets probably were the wrong size; I think it would be better softened to "..because the pockets had not been measured against official specifications." (Or similar.) — (done)
  • "The Miles match was to be Spencer's last victory at the Crucible." Again, this could just be "The Miles match was Spencer's last victory at the Crucible." — (done)
  • Spell out WPBSA on first mention. — (done)
  • Per MOS:SURVIVEDBY, try to rephrase the last sentence. — (done)

That's the lot for the prose I think. A nice biography. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thank you for the thorough review, very much appreciated. I'll start going through your points later today. Most are very useful, but I disagree with a couple and will give my reasons, then we can discuss. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Thank you. I've split the performance and ranking timeline into three tables to avoid having column headers in the middle of a table, removed some cell colours that didn't add much, added captions, added row and column scopes, and removed breaks. Please let me know if any other table formatting is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: I've dealt with most of your queries, please see individual responses above. I've given feedback on the ones that need more discussion or general agreement. Also marked a couple for attention of User:BennyOnTheLoose. Still working on changes to the lead following alterations by User:HurricaneHiggins, almost completed! Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Hello again, just about done now. I think the only thing outstanding is the currency conversions. I would like to keep these to a minimum, so we should probably remove some of them rather than adding in any more. There are 18 monetary amounts given in the article's body and I can't see how we could provide equivalents for every one of those without the whole thing looking a bit cluttered. What do you think? Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note that I'm currently away from home with work, so won't be able to look at this for a few days. Harrias (he/him) • talk 06:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, you back on deck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'm happy to support based on the changes. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request, reviewing this version. How did we come to the conclusion of the footnote t "The winning aggregate score is unknown."? Are Billiards and Snooker. and Snooker Scene. offline publications? Which The Times is source #17 about? What make uk.eurosport.yahoo.com and snookerdatabase.co.uk reliable sources? I am also not sure if the Daily Mirror is a high-quality source for a FA. Kinda wondering about "Turner, Chris. Chris Turner's Snooker Archive.", is that a commonly cited source? I am not sure that the citations #120-#121, #124-#126 provide enough information to track down the source. Source formatting appears to be mostly consistent, except for #35 which has a different formatting from other citations to Snooker Scene. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the Eurosport thing. As for the footnote, it should cite some sources that were checked. As for the archive, I'll defer to the RSN discussion this time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I amended the note to "The winning aggregate score is not mentioned in any of the reliable sources consulted for this article." - but I can specify two or three (or as many as you suggest) sources instead if that works better. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better to specify, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've mentioned three of the soruces that would have been most likely to include that information. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is a pass, with my caveat about no spotcheck. It seems like a lot of the coverage is in snooker-dedicated sources, but there are some non-snooker sources too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The winning aggregate score is unknown" changed to "The winning aggregate score is not mentioned in the source."
  • Billiards and Snooker and Snooker Scene are offline publications, although Snooker Scene also had a website. Billiards and Snooker was the official magazine of the Billiards Association and Control Council and during the period of the issues cited here, was edited by Clive Everton. Everton, I think it's fair to say, is the most respected authority on snooker history. He went on to found Snooker Scene and continued to write for newspapers including The Guardian as well as being a commentator for the BBC's television coverage of snooker.
  • I've added locations for The Times (London),
  • Chris Turner's Snooker Archive was discussed as the reliable sources noticeboard last year and although there wasn't wide participation, there were no objections. It is very commonly used in our snooker articles.
  • uk.eurosport.yahoo.com - I've never seen any objection to Eurosport as a reliable source. Let me know if this needs to be changed.
  • snookerdatabase.co.uk - removed. I'll see if I can find another source for the Pot Black results.
  • I've swapped out the Daily Mirror references, and clippings for their replacements and the other ones where you were concerned that there might not be enough information to track down the source.
  • I made the source formatting change that you identified.

Comments from HurricaneHiggins[edit]

I've made some edits to the article lead, but have not edited the article body itself, which looks great to me overall. It is complete, well written, and well-sourced. No major criticisms or concerns. A few suggestions:

  • Some sources say that Spencer was known as "Gentleman John". Should this be included as a nickname, per many other snooker bios?
  • Per the Bolton News and New York Times, Spencer was involved in a serious car crash after an exhibition match in 1974, when he fell asleep at the wheel and swerved in front of a lorry. The BN article mentions that he was lucky to escape alive. This is surely noteworthy.
  • In describing the same incident, the Bolton Times refers to Spencer's "famous twisted cue" that was 80 years old, which was smashed into four pieces in the crash, leading Spencer to become one of the first professionals to use a two-piece cue. Another detail that could be of interest?

These suggestions aside, I'm more than happy to support the promotion of this article to Featured status.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneHiggins (talk • contribs) 13:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneHiggins: Thank you for supporting the article and for the above comments, which I will address later. I also want to look at your lead changes in detail because you've completely overhauled it since the article was nominated for FAC :) Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, @Rodney Baggins. I see from your comment above that you disagree with some of my edits, which is fine ... please feel free to revert anything that creates an issue! My goal was to make the lead clearer and more readable, especially for non–snooker fans. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneHiggins: Hi there, I've had a good bash at the lead, mostly keeping your new structure intact but trimming and expanding where I think necessary. I've tried to explain my main changes so you can follow the logic. Please can you take a look and highlight anything you don't agree with? Might have to run this past the other FAC reviewers too. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodney Baggins Great work! I love everything you've done here. One minor thing -- you say he "lost interest in playing snooker for several years" but there was a substantial 11-year period where he didn't play at all. I might suggest "lost interest in playing snooker for over a decade". Otherwise, fantastic job. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Spencer_(snooker_player)/archive1&oldid=1188036213"