Talk:2019 Masters (snooker)

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

"Seeded 9-16"[edit]

Yes I know, that the page says "The top eight in the seeding list following the UK Championship will be randomly drawn against the players seeded 9-16 in the opening round draw." But that is just clumsy wording. When you are drawn randomly, you are not seeded. That is kind of the whole point about seedings. However, they are ranked 9-16. But that's a different story. Anyways, I'll just let it go. No reason for an "editing war". Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept this at all. See 2018 FIFA World Cup seeding#Seeding for a typical example. Those in "pot 2" were seeded 8 to 18 but were then drawn randomly into a particular group. OK, there's a difference here in that it makes no difference whether they were seeded 9-16 or not seeded, but World Snooker regards them as seeded 9-16 and thats what we should use here. Nigej (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The word seeded here is simply used to not have to use the phrase "ranked at world number X". We should go what the sources say however. Seeded 9-16 is fine. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite the same. Even last year Bingham was seeded 12 but was banned so Wenbo (ranked 17) became seeded 16. Other examples in previous years, eg when Murphy was world champ he was ranked 21 but seeded 2 and whoever was ranked 15 became seeded 16. Nigej (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, seeded and simultaneously randomly drawn against the actually seeded players. Makes perfect sense :-) Anyways, as I said; I'll just let it go. Happy holidays :-) Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem reluctant to accept that there can be both seeding and a random element too. Look at Wimbledon for instance. 32 seeds but they are not simply allocated fixed places so that 1 plays 32, 2 plays 31 etc. (should they both reach round 3) No. Seeds 1 and 2 have fixed positions but other seeds have an element of randomness as to where they go in the draw. Nigej (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to understand, that a draw is made randomly. That’s good. You also seem to understand, that there is an element of non-randomness to most draws. This element is labelled with the term ‘seedings’. That’s good too. However, you do not seem to understand the difference between seeded and unseeded players in a draw. It really isn’t rocket science, but you seem reluctant to even try to understand it.
Even so, I will try if I can help you with some examples.
2017 UK Championship:
128/128 players seeded with fixed postions in the playing schedule. No draw.
2018 UK Championship:
124/128 players seeded with fixed positions. 4 unseeded players randomly drawn against the top 4 seeds.
2018 Champion of Champions:
8/16 players seeded with fixed positions. 8 unseeded players drawn randomly against the eight seeded players.
2018 Wimbledon:
32/128 players seeded with restrictions to positions. E.g. 1st seed and 2nd seed can not play each other sooner than in the final, and seeded players can not play each other sooner than the round of 32. But there is still af draw amongst the seeds. And the 96 unseeded players are drawn randomly against the 32 seeded players.
2019 Masters:
8/16 players seeded with fixed positions. The remaining eight players are randomly drawn against the seeded players. Are the remaining eight players seeded? Not if the word ‘seeded’ is supposed to mean anything.
Anyways, as already mentioned, I will not change it back.
And again; happy holidays. Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How many seeds were there in the old wild-card days when those "seeded" 15 and 16 played the wildcards? Only 8 presumably. The two players seeded 15 and 16 weren't actually seeded they just had to play the two wildcards. Nigej (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's how it should have been. Still 8 players who were seeded. It was the 15th and 16th player in the participants ranking who had to play against the wildcards. --BlueFire10 Let's talkabout my edits? 14:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should have been. However it wasn't. They were referred to as the 15th and 16th seeds. Seems to me that World Snooker are simply using the word "seed" to indicate an ordering of the players. They can rank all 16 players if they choose or just 8. That's up to them. You're trying to make the word "seed" to mean something more specific, something to do with how players are allocated in the draw. Nigej (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is exactly what seedings (normally) are about - allocation in a draw.
In summary:
At the Champions of Champions players are seeded 1–8 with fixed positions in the draw. And the remaining 8 players are unseeded and therefore drawn randomly against the seeded players.
At the Masters players are seeded 1–8 with fixed positions in the draw. And the remaining 8 players are seeded 9–16 and drawn randomly against the actually seeded players. And so, regarding players “seeded 9–16” the term has lost its meaning.
No real harm done, though. I can live with the appeal to authority in this case. I watch my snooker on BBC and Eurosport, and you will hear pundits talk about which players will make it into the Masters, and which players will make it into the seedings at the Masters. However, I consider World Snooker to be the authority. They just mixed up the words 'seeded' and 'ranked', that's all. Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My suspicion is that this use of "seed" to mean official ranking is quite widespread. It's common to talk about someone being the 5th seed (or whatever), meaning they are the official 5th-best player, not really saying anything about the draw. See, for instance, 2018 FIFA World Cup seeding which says "All teams were seeded using the October 2017 FIFA World Rankings, ..." simply meaning that they were ranked. Even the pots were referred to as "seeding pots". I'm not sure in your system how many real seeds you would say that there were in the World Cup. 24 I assume, since the 24th team got a preferential draw over the 25th team. Nigej (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My suspicion is, that it is clumsy wording. I have never heard anyone talk about the “78th seed” (or whatever) at, say, Wimbledon. It would be something like “came into the tournament ranked 78th in the World” and/or “wasn’t even seeded in the tournament”.
The World Cup draw is a different story, because every team is seeded. Or you could say, that 24 out of the 32 teams are seeded. Either way, it makes a difference if you are seeded in, say, pot A or pot C.
At the Masters it makes no difference if you are “seeded” 9 or 16. Same thing in the Champions of Champions, where players are seeded 1–8 with the remaining 8 players unseeded. Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hits[edit]

Thought this might interest people:

Nigej (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the article is of significantly better quality than previous years. But this does show a positive correlation for Cue Sport articles. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be Ronnie effect to a certain extent. Nigej (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't he win it in 2017, though? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True. Which is perhaps why the final got proportionately more hits than the other days that year (26/114).

and (randomly chosen):

The obvious trend is simply more hits. Nigej (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2018 Open Championship got 195,000 204,000 and 180,000 in July 2016 2017 and 2018, which is a surprise to me. I was expected the golf to get more than the snooker. Nigej (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GA[edit]

I've added some extra information for the event, as well as free use images. Anything else that this article should cover before nominating for GA? I've put a request in at WP:GOCE. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great job. Will go through it soon. Nigej (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's comments unsourced[edit]

At the bottom of the Final subsection of the Tournament summary, Trump is quoted as saying "My brother Jack gave up his job to help me on tour this season, it has been amazing to have him with me, making me practice. With my mum and dad, it makes for a family success." Can anyone tell me where this quote came from? I've had a good look through Ref.34 and can't find it anywhere, including in the video clips. We either need to cite the correct source where these words came from, or remove the quote altogether. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 Masters (snooker)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 18:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'll review this (participating in the WikiCup). ceranthor 18:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this one Ceranthor. Let me know if I can help or explain anything. For disclosure, I am also participating in the Wiki Cup. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]

Lead
  • "It was the 45th staging of the tournament, broadcast in Europe by the BBC and Eurosport.[1]" - tense-wise, shouldn't it be "broadcasted?"
  • "despite two century breaks from O'Sullivan, won 10–4. " - can you link century breaks or briefly explain what they are? As a lay reader, I have no idea
  • "Luca Brecel made the highest break of the tournament," - same note as above
Tournament summary
  • "The Masters event is an invitational tournament, inviting the top 16 competitors from the snooker world rankings. " - invitational / inviting is redundant
  • "Brecel led 3–1 before Allen levelled the match at 3–3 with a break of 136. " - again, not sure what a break is
  • " Brecel went ahead winning frame seven (with the tournament high break of 140)" - what's a frame?
    • I have added a small note to the summary stating that the matches were best of 11 frames, and wikilinked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when he missed a pot on the brown, which would have won the frame. " - pot on the brown meaning...?
  • "Robertson made a 59 clearance and then went on to win the remaining four frames of the match.[7]" - "went on to" is redundant, just say "then won" or "then later won"
  • "Two-time Masters winner, and fifth seed " - don't need the comma here
  • "Ding would take advantage of a poor performance from Lisowski, saying, "You have to punish your opponent", after Lisowski's highest break of the match scored 60.[10]" - "would take" isn't in the right tense; maybe "took advantage of..."
  • "however O'Sullivan won the next five, scoring two centuries.[8] " - which are (again lay reader here)?
    • Century is almost exactly what you think they would be. Scoring over 100 points in one turn. As I've linked above, I won't do it every time, just for the first instance. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, he misjudged a safety shot" - which is?
  • "despite being able to hit a red, " - which is?
  • "Brecel had missed a simple red to the middle pocket.[15][16] - pocket?
  • "In frame seven, Ding potted the 15 reds and 15 blacks, fluked the yellow but then missed a difficult green to the middle pocket, " - potted? fluked? blacks? yellow? green?
  • "After the final, Trump said that he was "sick of watching other players win". " - I'd put a citation here after the direct quote
Coverage
  • "Worldwide, the event was covered by China Central Television and Superstars Online in China, and Sky Sports in New Zealand.[42]" - don't need the comma after "China"
  • Rest of the article looks fine.

References[edit]

  • Given my lack of familiarity with most the sources (exceptions ie. BBC), I want to go through and make sure the snooker-specific sites are all reliable per WP:RS:
  • What makes WorldSnooker reliable?
    • WP:PRIMARY-ish source. It's the world governing body of the sport, (only primary in so much as official, they ran the event in question). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes SnookerHQ reliable?
  • What makes Eurosport reliable?
    • EuroSport is the secondary broadcaster for the event. Clearly has an editorial role. It's also listed at WP:SNOOKER Century break needs updating. Any updates should observe the consensus at WT:SNOOKER#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? and avoid using self-published sources since they have many inconsistencies. Suitable WP:SOURCES include dedicated magazines/journals with editorial oversight such as Snooker Scene, mainstream news and sport outlets (such as BBC News or Eurosport) and the professional governing body, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association, and its commercial arm, World Snooker. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Dailystar.co.uk. reliable? (Also the ALLCAPS is not necessary, and should be consistent with the other sources)
  • What makes SkySports reliable?
    • Much the same as EuroSport. Sky Sports is a sports broadcaster. News is considered reliable from Sky UK. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes sportinglife.com. reliable?
    • British Newspaper. Editorial role, I've never heard of any question of reliability to date. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Express.co.uk reliable?
  • Why is BBC sport only linked in some refs and not others? Be consistent.
  • In ref 28, you shouldn't use sport, Guardian as the author. Also, "the" in "the Guardian" should be capitalized.
  • Ref 35 shouldn't list the work as the author.

Images[edit]

  • Sure. None of these images are mine, but I can easily swap out the images on Commons for other ones. This one has been up for some time, so I can't see too much of an issue. However, I'm happy to change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the prose is well-written, but jargon-y at bits. The refs have me a teensy bit concerned for reliability, but hoping you can explain what makes a bunch of these sources reliable per WP:RS. ceranthor 15:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this doesn't seem too bad too me. Shouldn't take too long to fix. I'll comment on each individual piece. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor I've made the above changes. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Great, will take a look ASAP. ceranthor 16:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Passing now - thanks for the speedy response. Good work! ceranthor 14:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor - Great! Thank you for your review! I appreciate it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Masters_(snooker)&oldid=1196834849"