Talk:2022 Masters (snooker)

Ding's non-entry

We should probably make a point of referencing that this is the first time since Ding's first appearance at the Masters (2004 iirc?) where he won't feature, ending a consecutive 16 year run appearance in the Mtournament (the 2004 and 2005 editions were via the wildcard qualifying round) as a result of a decrease in his ranking points over the last 2 years since 2019. Ding's lack of presence at the tournament is notable in that it capitulated him into the public eye, iirc. --CitroenLover (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Not showing all "seed/ranking" numbers?

I do understand how the draw works, but for previous years articles the "unseeded" 8 players still have a number/seed/ranking whatever besides their name in the brackets. Check it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8085:7160:3B80:408A:5E81:B27B:3254 (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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) 08:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that referee Jan Verhaas was informed of an error he made at the 2022 Masters by a member of the crowd? Source: https://www.eurosport.co.uk/snooker/the-masters/2021-2022/masters-crowd-laugh-at-rare-error-from-referee-jan-verhaas-during-john-higgins-match-against-zhao-xi_sto8702045/story.shtml
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Lifetime Medical Television

5x expanded by Lee Vilenski (talk) and Hurricane Higgins (talk). Nominated by Lee Vilenski (talk) at 15:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

• If the hook doesn't float your boat, the event is ongoing, so I'm sure something additionally hooky will happen in short order. QPQ incoming Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Article was expanded 5x not quite at the time it was nominated, but was within four edits of nomination, so close enough for me. Despite the inherent instability of writing on an event that's currently ongoing, article is well-written and cited, with no obvious copyright violations. Hook looks good. QPQ has now been satisfied. — GhostRiver 02:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P1

Disruptive editing

I have been trying to update and improve the article in good faith over the past week, but it has become frustrating to have a Wikipedia administrator (of all people) needlessly rewording correctly written sentences in ways that damage grammar and syntax, such as changing "The players then traded frames, with Higgins leveling the match at 4–4 with a 127 break" to "Higgins leveling the match at 4–4 with a 127 break" (the latter is not a grammatical standalone sentence); introducing spelling errors, such as replacing "O'Sullivan" with "O'Sillivan" or "accidentally" with "accedently"; deleting sourced and relevant material without explanation, such as my mention of the standing ovations at the Higgins/Williams match, which every published source has commented on, and which Williams himself noted as a highlight of his 30-year career; or demanding citations for obvious statements such as that six of the eight quarter-finalists were former Masters champions. This is essentially disruptive editing that harms the quality of articles while discouraging participation and consensus. It's sad to say, but further efforts to work on this article seem pointless in this environment. Enjoy today's final, everyone. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to talk about someone you should always ping them to a discussion. You could have easily talked to me about these issues rather than talk about me on a talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, where we do all edit one article. We do have rather strict rules on things being sourced, so saying that six of the eight players had won the event before is fine, but only if a source has made that connection previously. It also doesn't meet WP:BLUE. It has previously been discussed that the phrase "traded frames" isn't suitable as it doesn't have much meaning, especially if you later then explain who won which frames. We all make spelling mistakes, and I apologise if these have caused you to not wish to continue editing the article. The piece about the "standing ovation" feels very crufty to me. Feel free to re-add this if it feels pertinent to you. This is not in any way disruptive editing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to talk to me about anything, I'm not here to hurt anyone or their editing. I always leave an edit summary, but no one can expect their wording to go unchanged on a collaborative encyclopedia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how to "ping" someone to a discussion or talk to them elsewhere. As for requiring sources, it's apparently okay to say, without sources, that O'Sullivan has won the tournament seven times, that Williams is a two-time champion, or that Robertson formerly won the event in 2012, but not to say that six of the quarter-finalists have won the event before. Demanding sources for some such statements but not others is inconsistent and subjective. The issue is not with making occasional spelling mistakes but with gratuitously rewriting other people's contributions per your own stylistic preferences, often in ways that frequently introduce grammatical, spelling, and syntactical errors and make the article choppy and less readable. You make the point that "Wikipedia is a collaborative process, where we do all edit one article," but when an administrator is micromanaging the content, tone, and style of articles on a sentence-by-sentence level, rewriting everyone else's contributions and deleting sourced material without explanation or discussion (other than "feels very crufty to me" — and what does that even mean, other than that your subjective opinion matters more than others' contributions?) it does not feel collaborative. If feels like one person is trying to be sole arbiter of what an article should contain and how it should be written, and also feels like others' contributions are not valued. That's the very opposite of what Wikipedia should be. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You can ping with the {{ping}} template, or by leaving them a note on their talk page. First off, I'd like to say that in no way do I not appreciate your contributions. You've done some sterling work on adding match reports, and otherwise. If I have given you the impression that I've just been overwriting your own work, then I apologise. I do know, however, what reviewers look for when an article goes to WP:GAN and WP:FAC, which is where I'd like to take this article, as I have done for the previous two Masters events. To avoid unnecessary drama, feel free to revert/change any edits that I have made, and I'll be more than happy to discuss which ones I stand by so we can gain a consensus on the article.

We actually do source that O'Sullivan won the event seven times, but you are right that Williams' and Robertson's record isn't in the sources provided, so we can remove that. WP:CRUFT is a big issue on our articles, such as saying that all of the semi-finalists are left handers. Even though some RS comment on this, it seems more like WP:TRIVIA than anything else. I can see that the fan reaction was covered quite a bit in RS, but to me it seems a bit like a self-insert than a summary of the competition. However, this one is clearly much more likely to be important, so willing to let this one go.

As an aside, although I have administrative powers, it doesn't give me any more or less powers in this article, and I have never tried to use them as such. I am just a regular editor. I really hope you are enjoying the event, and I'll leave your edits alone. :).Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2022 Masters (snooker)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rlink2 (talk · contribs) 03:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

As usual I do mulitple passes of reading on these articles, to make sure they meet the highest standards, and to catch any possible issues that I might have missed the first time.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Maybe in the lead, use a comma, so instead of The 16 competitors were invited to the tournament based on the world rankings as they stood... it could be The 16 competitors were invited to the tournament based on the world rankings ,as they stood , .....
   
   The phrase Hawkins acknowledged struggling in the final... seems a bit strange, I know the context, but it still "seems" a bit unclear. I think something like Hawkins acknowledged his struggles in the final or Hawkins acknowledged that he was struggling in the final is a better sentence.
   
   And maybe another comma here could be useful: Other players, such as Gary Wilson praised Selby for speaking up about depression within the sport. can instead be Other players, such as Gary Wilson , praised Selby for speaking up about depression within the sport. (comma after "Wilson")

   Done/ Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Regarding the lead, does the Cazoo sponsorship need to be in there? It's fairly obvious that Cazoo is sponsoring this event right away, and it's only talked about in one sentence. Let me know if I am misunderstanding something, you would know best.
   
   The words century break in the "First Round" section should probably be blue linked, the term may be unobvious to non snooker players. You already did this, good job. Missed the first blue link.

   The sponsorship has been discussed previously at WT:SNOOKER, and deemed suitable. I didn't link "Century break", because it is previously linked as "century". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

   Ok, that looks good to me. Rlink2 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Yes. All references have been archived with web.archive.org, archive.today, and/or ghostarchive.org. I saw you ran IAbot on the article before nominating it, which is good, thank you for doing that. There was one ref that didn't have an archive link, but it was some region locked video. Both web.archive.org and ghostarchive.org were unable to capture this, so whatevs. Maybe you can find a Youtube link of the video in question, which anyone can access. Not a big deal however, the important thing is that the source is there.
   
   It's good I checked this because it brings up a much more important and relevant issue, which is inconsistent citation styles. I noticed that some citations are using the CS1/CS2 cite template, while others are not. The ones that are not using the citation templates have the "webarchive" template, which was designed for references without citation templates. Shouldn't the citation style be consistent per the MOS:FNNR guidelines? Correct me if I am missing something.
   
   And also, if you can, try to find a web link for the Snooker Scene. publications. Not required, but could be useful.

   Snooker Scene is a print magazine (been going for 50 years or so). I do have an electronical version of this if you need any specific quotes from it. We don't link to YouTube simply for archiving. I have fixed the two sources using webarchive. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

1. B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Yes, sources seem reliable.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No. Everything is supported by the references at hand.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   I don't see any indication from my end that the article has copyright violations. You are an admin, so you have access to the copyvio tools, if you want you can use it to double check the article.

   If I have access to anything more in depth that EarWig, I'm not aware of it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

   I do have an electronical version of this if you need any specific quotes from it. Ok, good, that's what matters, per WP:SOURCEACCESS

   We don't link to YouTube simply for archiving. I I agree, my comment regarding videos was regarding WP:V. I am a strong believer that we should have citations that anyone can verify (so no paywall) whenever possible. It's not a problem if theres a paywall (newspapers.com) and trusted users can always check it for others, but for more obscure sources if the original person can't find them it can be harder. I digress.

   I have fixed the two sources using webarchive. that was more important, thanks. Rlink2 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Yes, of course. There was a game, and it addressed everything, from the beginning/prelude to the game, and the actual game itself, to the aftermath. Most of the article, of course, has been focused on the actual match, which is what I would expect.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   This is fairly detailed, but I assume its the norm for sports articles. More detail is good, usually almost always.

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Yes, I think you got everyone's perspective in there. One of the only articles that can contain the word "trump" and almost everyone would agree it is a fair description of what went on ;)

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Article history is stable.

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Yes.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Yes. Images support the content and enrich the reader's understanding of the material. It's always nice to see the GA's noms images in the article - it shows they care about the subject at hand and also may know more about it than the average writer. It also shows they are willing to put in the work.

   Sadly I could only get to one session of the event, but it is nice to get back to seeing events again. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

   Yeah, covid runined everything (at least for my favorite sports, like soccer). Its good the world is opening up more .... Rlink2 (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Amazing work as usual. Always a joy to read articles from editors like you. I will follow up with more comments if needed. Keep up the good work Rlink2 (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Ok, I think this looks good. Going to promote. Rlink2 (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)