Talk:1936 World Snooker Championship

1936 World Snooker Championship has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 8, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Snooker High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1936 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harper J. Cole (talk · contribs) 20:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take on this review, as part of the July 2021 Backlog Drive.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[a significant increase from the five in the previous year and just two in 1934] Slightly awkward phrasing - I'd recommend dropping the first "the" ("a significant increase from five in the previous year).
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

[Tom Dennis who had received a bye later withdrew, his opponent Stanley Newman's first game was in the semi-finals.] Punctuation is a bit off. I suggest, "Tom Dennis, who had received a bye, later withdrew. His scheduled opponent Stanley Newman's first game was in the semi-finals."
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worth adding a line at the end explaining that if victory in the match was achieved with any frames to spare, those frames would still be played? That system hasn't been used for a while, so it might throw people off.
- Good point. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule

I'm not clear on what the source for the individual match dates is?
- The actual dates are covered in the book by Eric Hayton. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[The Championship started on 23 March, immediately following the 1935/1936 Daily Mail Gold Cup] Immediately suggests that it started the next day. It looks like it started two days later, so I'd replace "immediately following" with "two days after".

[Lindrum won the next three to comfortably win the match 16–8] To avoid confusion between the moment when victory is assured and the final match score, I'd suggest replacing "win the match" with "clinch the match at". If you agree then I'd suggest changing the other match reports where this happened in a similar way.

[After a break for Easter] Wikilink Easter.

[Lindrum played an exhibition match against Bert Terry.] Do we know the result of the exhibition match? Worth a mention if so.

[but Stanbury has the better of the second day] Should be "had the better".

[However Lindrum levelled the match at 15–15,] Comma after "However".

[The success of the event proved that snooker became a major game] Should be "had become". Also, could you specify in which way the tournament was a success (paid attendance, number of participants, prize money, press coverage, etc.)?
- All covered. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final

You have the first frame of the final day as 54-65, while CueTracker have it as 54-61. I'm not sure which is right, but thought I should bring it to your attention.

Sure. I can investigate... I will say there is a reason why cuetracker is on the global blacklist! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status

A well-written article, with only minor changes to suggest. I'll await your response on the above points.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Think I've covered all the points above Harper J. Cole I'll take a look at the scoring when I get a few mins. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - I wasn't aware of CueTracker's bad reputation as a source. I'll pass the article for GA status - thanks for the interesting read,--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]