Talk:1971 World Snooker Championship/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 21:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Note: I've previously added to this article. According to xtools my contribution to it is 1.1%. I don't consider this a "significant contribution" due to the low proportion of the article this represents, and because my edits were not about anything fundamental. Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. I'll make what I regard as uncontroversial minor changes as I go through. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the article, Lee Vilenski - my comments so far are below, I don't expect to raise anything else. I haven't found any major issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've covered all of the below, BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for the review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for all your work on the article and the responses to my review comments. Following the changes, I'm happy to pass this for GA. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review Comments

Infobox

  • I think the relevant organisation was the the B&SCC for this tournament. (Let me know if you need a source, unless you have one that says it was the WPBSA)
    • Nope, someone else added that and I didn't notice it
  • I don't think format should be "ranking event" as this pre-dates the rankings.
  • Use flagathlete?

Copyvio and plagiarism check

  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector has no matches above 4.8%. I looked through those with more than 1%, and have no concerns.

Overview

  • Might be worth spelling out somewhere that this is regarded in sources as the 1971 event even though it took place in 1970, other wise the first line of the lead could look a bit odd to a reader who could reasonably expect the 1971 Championship to be held in 1971.
  • "the sport was popular in the British Isles". I don't have data to hand, but I think it still is! Consider something like "..originally popular mainly in...", if sources support it. (I note that the current wording has been passed in FA reviews, so this is very much an optional change).
  • Consider bringing the dating of "the modern era" out of the footnote and into the article, as the usage won't be familiar to all readers.
    • It is a bit of an aside though (which is the need for a note) - I don't see a natural way to comment this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, the note is there at the end of the sentence, not unreasonable to expect that a curious reader would look there. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The basis of the incomplete round-robin seems, in Clive Everton's telling, to be shrouded in mystery. Instead of "until four players remained, where it reverted to a single elimination format" maybe something like "from which four players qualified to the single elimination format rounds"?

Format

  • "This was the first time the championship was held outside the United Kingdom" - consider an expansion or a footnote to cover off the two 1965 challenge matches in South Africa.
  • "... in which each competitor played a three-day, 37-frame match against four of the other eight competitors." seems to leave open the possibility that matches were one player against four. How about "... in which each competitor played four three-day, 37-frame matches." or "... in which the matches were of 37 frames, played across three days, and each competitor played four of the other eight competitors."
  • "The number of frames needed to win a match increased at the semi-finals stage, which were played as the best-of-49, and the final as the best-of-73 frames." doesn't read quite right to me.

Round-robin rounds

Knockout rounds

  • Three consecutive sentences start with "Simpson" - reword.

Round-robin stage

  • Looks fine.

Table

  • What's the source, or is it a calculation from the results?
  • On my desktop, Norman Squire's "Player" column wraps. Consider amending the width of this column.

Knockout stage

Image

Lead

  • See comment above about the name of the tournament v the date it took place, and the 1965 challenge matches in South Africa.
  • "with a round-robin round with four qualifiers" - how about "with a round-robin stage producing four qualifiers"?
  • Reword to avoid duplication of the word "break" in "the highest break of the tournament with a break of 129 in the final session"

References

  • Depth and breadth of coverage is appropriate. No significant issues found with references, which are from reliable sources and support the text, subject to comments above. There are a couple of places where references be re-ordered for tidiness, e.g. [17][15], [20][18][19], [49][18][19]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1971_World_Snooker_Championship/GA1&oldid=976017506"