Talk:1964–68 World Snooker Championships/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 18:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:
· · ·

Lead

Since 1927 the World Snooker Championship was played as a single-elimination tournament - The verb is simple past tense, but the sentence structure indicates that it should be a continuous past tense. I suggest "had been played".
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This began in 1964 organised by the Billiards Association and Control Council. - I would add a comma after "began in 1964" since that would set off the qualifying phrase "organised by the Billiards Association and Control Council".
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the matches played at the Burroughes Hall in London, England, two across South Africa, one in St George's Hall, Liverpool and the final match in Bolton - I also suggest semicolons after "England" and "South Africa" because this is a serial list wherein some of the phrases have commas.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

English player Rex Williams ran a four player tournament in Blackheath in 1964 which was the first commercially sponsored professional snooker event since 1960. - you can condense this by cutting out "which was" and adding a comma after 1964. I.e. "...in Blackheath in 1964, the first commercially sponsored professional snooker event since 1960." Also, is there a particular reason for the hiatus?
- Just because of the earlier lack of interest, snooker just became a bit less interesting to sponsors. Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The championship would be defended on a challenge basis, with defending champion Pulman facing a prominent snooker professional with the winner becoming the new champion. - I would rephrase this because the word "with" is used twice in this sentence to set off a phrase.
- Split sentence to avoid. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Looking at the Results section, there are two events in 1964, one in March 1965, two in South Africa, one in April 1966, and one in March 1968. However, the 1964 section has three paragraphs, although the first two paragraphs are about the same event. I wonder if it would be easier to combine these first two paragraphs.
- Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The winner of June 1965 South African Professional Championship - should this be "the winner of the June 1965..."?
- Indeed. Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a 5-day 35-frame match - can it be spelled out as "a five-day 35-frame"? Here, two numerical figures are used in short succession, which looks awkward.
- Yeah, that's fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
with the player who won the most matches winning the championship - this wording is also a bit strange. I would suggest just outright saying that the first player to win four matches became the championship winner, since winning 4 of 7 is automatically a majority.
- That does make more sense. Changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can the notes and references be split into at least their own subsections? I understand if you don't want to do this for consistency.
- That's fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Times should be linked in the first reference where it's mentioned if it's linked only once. Tight now, it is linked in ref 13 but the first The Times reference is ref 4.
- done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else seems ok.

Except for the flags (which are appropriately licensed), there are no images, and therefore there are no issues.
A copyright violation check came up clean. epicgenius (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this one Epicgenius. I've caught up with the initial comments.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lee Vilenski: No problem. Putting this article on hold, just a few minor things. epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - All right. This looks good to go, so I'm promoting this to good article status. epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]