Talk:2021 British Open

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2021 British Open is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2021Good article nomineeListed
May 31, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 27, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 3, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a separated couple competed for the first time at the 2021 British Open?
Current status: Featured article

References[edit]

I have twice reverted this change because it invokes a reference named "results", which was never defined. The event is more than four weeks in the future, so the results section is empty, anyway, and won't be needed until the conclusion of the event. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. The undefined reference creates the visible message "Cite error: The named reference results was invoked but never defined" in the references section of the article, and adds it to Category:Pages with broken reference names. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned so much about the "undefined reference error", just remove the invalid reference instead of constantly reverting the page and removing text as a result which belongs in the article, even if hidden temporarily.
We have created several blank stub articles for upcoming tournaments for this season with no issue whatsoever from anyone in the Snooker wikiproject (please refer to 2021 Northern Ireland Open, 2021 English Open (snooker) and 2021 Champion of Champions as prime examples of empty result set pages which no one has taken issue with). The blank result sets are something I discussed with Lee Vilenski on his talkpage and he did not take any issue with these articles being made in this way. The point of having a stub page is to ensure the page has a standard that can be followed once information is provided.
You're very wrong about the results being needed "at the end of an event" as this is inaccurate: we will receive the draw for the tournament next week, so the data will have to be provided in advance of the tournament, as has been the case for all snooker articles on the wiki for years. The page will also be actively edited during the tournament once results actually come in. In addition, all references about the tournament are given in the article lead, which provide all you need to know about the structure and format of the tournament. --CitroenLover (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be a lot happier if we just comment out the results on these pages until the start of the event. There is no reason to have a draw until it is made. The pages themselves are fine, if we can state a date and a location, they are at least of encyclopaedic use, but having a blank draw is a bit much. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind commenting out the blank draws, thats fine with me and I don't have issue with them being there in a hidden manner. However they should be on the page so that they can be quickly uncommented once information about the draw has been given [and for this tournament, we'll have the draw next week, according to WST].
EDIT: In an attempt to try and comment out the draw on some of the linked articles, I realised that it would require a lot of comment tags, since the draw tables contain comments themselves. It would take a fair while to easily remove all the correct comment tags in such cases, imo. --CitroenLover (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of amount of frames in results[edit]

Do we have any need for these, as we now have a format section? I see it's been reverted a few times, I definitely think even if the info would be suited to be in this section as well, it should be written in prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument goes that in, say, 2020 Northern Ireland Open#Main draw we have eg "Best of 7 frames" in the table header. To me this brevity makes some sense in a table, but in the situation here we don't have a table. Adding a strange paragraph like "(Best of 5 frames)" makes no sense to me. We might as well say "Matches were the best of 5 frames.", which is plain English, or not bother on the basis that it's said elsewhere and obvious anyway (like 2021 Snooker Shoot Out). Nigej (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, like 2020 Snooker Shoot Out which is GA. I'd like to think that after the event is over, (or at the semi-finals stage) we would change this into a bracket (table). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I like the idea of back-fitting a bracket/table for the later rounds, perhaps the last-16. I think it's clearer for the reader. Nigej (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with using a format like the ones used on other established tournaments like the aforementioned Northern Ireland Open.
The structure of the templates used on articles like that works for seeded tournaments, but I would personally find that format incredibly confusing to read on this article because there's no logical flow: the winners of Matches 1 and 2 [as indicated on the template] don't play each other in the next round because Match 65 [the equivalent first match in Round 2] are neither of these players, but the seeded draw templates would make that implication to anyone who never watched the tournament, leading to a lot of revert wars from those who don't read the pages properly.
To use this example: per the livescores.worldsnookerdata.com website, Match 1 is Boiko vs Hamilton and Match 2 is R Williams vs Akani. In a seeded draw single-eliminatiion tournament format, Match 64 would be the winners of M1 and M2 playing for the 3rd round. However, Match 65 is Walden vs R Williams. See the confusion that will result from doing this format?
Personally, the format used on the Snooker Shoot-Out is fine for this page and that tournament has been around for a while now with the same format and no one has had issues with that. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no - the draw fits as it should do. Now we know the progression, the brackets work backwards to show who beat whom to progress. The match numbers themselves are of little value. The only reason why the remain on the shootout page is because no one is interested in updating it into a bracket style. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for reference, the "FA Cup style" draws were introduced for the British Open in 1990, and the page for that event has the bracket format, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_British_Open
Huh I was not aware that the British Open previously used this format. Okay then, I retract my concerns on this. That being said, if the Shoot Out pages haven't been changed, it could also be because the format there is perfectly adequate and provides all the information without needing to be converted to brackets. 😉 --CitroenLover (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Lee Vilenski (talk). Self-nominated at 20:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • : Article is in compliance with the DYK criteria, hook is interesting and had me thinking "is this about golf? but how, thought the Men's and Women's open were separate?). Personally I think the list of broadcasters in background is a bit promotional-sounding but it is cited to a reliable source so I can't really complain under DYK criteria. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To T:DYK/P2

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2021 British Open/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am reviewing MWright96 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lead[edit]

  • "but the first in 17 years since the 2004 British Open." - and
  • "this breaks with the tradition of most ranking tournaments" - this broke with the tradition
  • The term seeded should be wikilinked to the relevant articles
  • "Higgins made his 12th maximum break in professional competition in the first frame of his first-round win over Alexander Ursenbacher, while Ali Carter made his third maximum break in professional competition in the second frame of his fourth-round match against Elliot Slessor." - repetition of the term highlighted in bold

Images[edit]

  • "Reanne Evans met former partner Mark Allen in the first round, but lost 2-3" - en dash please per MOS:DASH

Format[edit]

  • "The 2021 tournament is being held from 16 to 22 August 2021" - past tense please
  • "John Higgins is the defending champion," - same issue as above
  • "The event is broadcast by; ITV Sport" - character highlighted in bold is misplaced
  • ITV Sport can be wikilinked

Prize fund[edit]

  • "The tournament had a total prize fund of £470,000, with the winner receiving £100,000. This showed a £270,000 total prize money increase from the last tournament in 2004" - needs a reliable source from the ones already in the article to verify this information

Tournament summary[edit]

  • Ricky Walden and the term pot are wikilinked twice in this section and Stephen Maguire has a second wikilink that is unneeded in this section
  • "but missed match ball allowing Allen to win the match.[23][16]" - repetition of "match"
  • References in the above sentence should ideally be in numerical order
  • "Iranian player Hossein Vafaei defeated Allen 3–2, despite having never defeated him on the prior four meetings." - repetition of "defeated"
  • "who had averaged over 30 seconds per shot." - more than
  • "Gilbert played Wilson, and led both 2–0 and 3–2, but lost the match after missing a pot using a long rest. Slessor met Zhou Yuelong and won 4–3 to reach his second ranking event semi-final." - The source at the end of this portion of text makes no mention of these events. Another reliable source(s) is required with mentions all this information
  • "before Slessor made a 125 break to force a deciding frame.[42][41]" - refs in numerical order please
  • "Aged 46, this was the third oldest person to win a ranking event," - can be either he or Williams
  • "only behind Ray Reardon (50) and Doug Mountjoy (46)." - in what years?
  • "Wilson, however was "bitterly disappointed", and that he had been "bitterly disappointed" not to win." - same quotes are being used for different purposes

Tournament draw[edit]

  • The first column in each of the sections should have the flagathlete templates used as you have done on several other articles

Century breaks[edit]

  • The term century breaks does not need to be linked here as an extra link
  • "Both Higgins and Carter made maximum breaks of 147 during the event. Higgins made one in the first frame of his first-round win over Ursenbacher, whilst Carter made his during the second frame of his fourth-round loss to Slessor.[13]" - The Carter maximum also needs to be verified by a reliable source in this section

References[edit]

  • All the works in the Eurosport references should be named as either Eurosport or Eurosport UK not a mix of both
    • These are seperate websites though, so I'm not sure it's really suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with the World Snooker sources named as either WST.tv or World Snooker
  • References 3 and 5 are missing the author(s)
  • The url link for Reference 13 "Higgins makes 12th maximum" is broken
  • References 14 to 15, 30 are missing the authors; 15 is missing the publication date
  • References 18 to 21, 23, 27 and 44 do not have the publication dates added to their respective templates
  • References 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 43 are missing their respective authors
  • Reference 26 is missing the author and publisher
  • References 2, 31, 34, 35, 38 and 42 all need to be fully formatted
  • References 32, 40, 41 are missing their respective access dates
  • References 33, 36 are lacking the authors and publication dates
  • The archive links for References 45 and 46 need to be updated

Am putting the review on hold to allow the nominator to address or query the points raised above MWright96 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_British_Open&oldid=1196878523"