Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2023 World Snooker Championship/archive1

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2024 [1].

2023 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC), User:HurricaneHiggins[reply]

This article is about the annual FAC for the main snooker tournament of the year. A bit later than usual as the GAN took a while to get looked at. Let me know your thoughts. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Licensing and descriptions on the player photographs is complete and appropriately done.
Non-free image has the appropriate disclosure and copyright information.
Flags are appropriately used and labeled per MOS:FLAG
Captions are generally fine, but I think the Davis one is too long and Brecel's is just shy of being too much.
Consider adding alternative text to images where possible. Sounder Bruce 05:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @SounderBruce. I reduced the length of the Davis and Brecel captions per your feedback. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOntheLoose[edit]

To my surprise, I'm listed as 2nd on the authorship list for this article; this is almost entirely due to me running IABot on it. Co-ords, please let me know whether it would be appropriate for me to express a "vote" on this one. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be entirely appropriate. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEADLENGTH says "Most featured articles have a lead length of about three paragraphs, containing 10 to 18 sentences, or 250 to 400 words."; although this is a long article, and so four paragraphs are fine, the lead is close to 600 words which IMO could probably be condensed slightly. (e.g. some of the stats like "marking the first time since the 1988 event that two Crucible debutants had reached the last eight" could perhaps be omitted)
World Snooker, which isn't independent, is used for a significant proportion of the references. I suppose that this is fine where simple facts are being supported, or quotes from players used.
Most of the wst.tv sources have "World Snooker" as publisher, but #24 has "World Snooker Tour", #30 has "WST"
Publisher for refs #5 and #184 should be World Snooker (and not WPBSA). (The WPBSA is a 26% stakeholder in WST)
As Metro is "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP, alternative sources should be found for the two intances where it's used.
The sources cited for Main draw don't verify the dates of matches, or the details of the final (referee, frame scores, breaks)
"Preview: The five women" - author is David Hendon, not "Ivan"
'described as "one of the most exciting"' - I think this should be attributed to Calladine if the direct quote is used.

Thank you @BennyOnTheLoose. I've tried to address your comments by shortening the lead to three paragraphs and under 400 words. I've also addressed your concerns about references #5, #24, #30, and #184, and have inserted Dave Hendon as the correct author of the article you noted. I also attributed that quote to Calladine.

Agreed that World Snooker articles are used frequently as a source, but they are accurate when it comes to scores, match summaries, post-match quotes from players, and other factual information, and would suggest that relying on this information does not introduce any bias into the article itself. As for using Metro, I'd note that the cited articles were written by the respected snooker journalist Phil Haigh, co-host of the Talking Snooker podcast with Nick Metcalfe, and might request that they be allowed here on the basis of Haigh being an established and reputable commentator on the sport.

I did not work on the Main Draw section, and might request those who did to address your concerns with references. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has attracted little interest. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More than a week on and no more progress, so I am regretfully going to archive this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.