Talk:2021 World Snooker Championship

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic FAC source review comments
Featured article2021 World Snooker Championship 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 2, 2022.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 20, 2021Good article nomineeListed
January 21, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 19, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 25, 2022Featured article candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 3, 2021.
Current status: Featured article


A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Qualification seedings

edit

Any idea why these only go up to 96? We don't generally give out seedings to amateur players (although, personally, I think an "a" would make sense, per 2019 World Snooker Championship), however a lot without seeds are professional players, and have seedings according to the sources listed [7], such as Hendry (125), Farakh Ajaib (121) etc. Should we add these? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I believe how it works in the first round is as follows: players officially ranked #81-#112 are seeded, professional players ranked #113-#128 are UNSEEDED and are drawn RANDOMLY (along with the 16 invited amateur players) to play against the seeded players #81-#112. So, no we shouldn't add "Hendry (125), Farakh Ajaib (121)", because there's only 96 seeded players for the World Championship qualifiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:1AE4:D658:B5D3:86A2:FD92:AE7C (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
How so? The source given offers seedings for these players. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 06:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
The source you're linking to, is showing their OFFICIAL two-year ranking, "Zhou Yuelong [17]". But, in the qualifiers, players RANKED #17-#112 are SEEDED (for the qualifiers) as 1-96, hence, as you see listed for the qualifying rounds here, "1 Zhou Yuelong (CHN)", "2 Stuart Bingham (ENG)" (who is currently #18 in the world), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:1AE4:D658:D88:2216:B185:3F23 (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
So, where do we have a list of the seedings that we currently use? I haven't seen this source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

look at the World Snooker Qualifying draw on the PDF file they have done it this way for two season's now. 31.200.148.242 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Have you got a link to this? The only one I have is [8], which shows no seedings for players. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Players ranked 1–16 are seeded 1–16 in the main draw. Except Ronnie being seeded 1 as defending champion. Players ranked 17–112 are seeded 1–96 in the qualification draw – except from players not participating (Marco Fu and Mei Xiven). Players ranked below 112 (or 114 because of those nonparticipating players) are unseeded. Players from outside the main tour are also unseeded. I do not have a link to the information, but it follows from reading the rankings. It has been the same for the past championships and other tournaments. I don't know if it is a problem to state something that is obviously true and uncontroversial, without having a direct source. I can't come up with a perfect analogy, but it would be something like stating 87 + 77 = 164, without a source. Well that's just my take on it. Best wishes to you all. Mrloop (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I know that's how the draw works, but we don't actually have a source for the seeds, other than what we've put together. If we have a draw somewhere with the specific seeds, that would put my mind at ease, or it's WP:OR. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Okay, it was just an answer to your question on why the seedings only go up to 96. In my eyes it seems like overkill to call it research when you deduct 16 from the rankings to show the seedings for the draw. But that's just my view. Best Wishes, and thank you for your work on the article, Mrloop (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I'm not trying to be hard work :P. I will be taking this to FAC inevitably, and I know this will be something others will enquire about. I'll keep searching for a good source for the seedings. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:2021 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amakuru (talk · contribs) 19:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Background
Format
Coverage
Qualifying
  • nicknamed "judgement day" - does everyone nickname it that, or is that just a headline by one particular observer?

More to come tomorrow!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

First round
Second round
Quarter-finals
Semi-finals
Final
Qualifying
  • No prose issues I can see.

@Lee Vilenski: that's it for my first pass. I'll have a look at referencing and the other GA criteria once you've had a chance to look at these. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've addressed all of the above Amakuru, thanks for the review! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Great, thanks Lee that all looks good to me. Signing off for GA.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

FAC source review comments

edit

As I got zero chance to respond to the comments, copying them here to work through. :/

Source & verification review by MrLinkinPark333

edit

Hey Lee. I'll do a source review of this one (review version). As this is a lengthy article, I'll have to break up my review into sections. I'll do the easier sections first:

  • Qualifying stage centuries:
    • "made by Mark Davis in his third round win over Stuart Carrington." - Centuries list for qualifiyng doesn't mention winner of each match. Therefore, "third round win over" -> "third round match against" or something similar.
    • I mean, sure, but we have got a fully sourced results list on the page - it's not like it isn't sourced. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • Main stage centuries:
    • Archived copy of Centuries in the Main Stage needs to be adjusted to May 14th to show all 108.  Done
    • "surpassing the previous best of 100 set in 2019" - Original Research as only the 2021 centuries are listed  Done
    • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • "made by Shaun Murphy in his second round win over Yan Bingtao." - same as above, the Centuries list doesn't state the winners of each match. So, I suggest "second round win over" -> "second round match against"
    • "three short of the record held by Stephen Hendry, but made an additional four centuries in qualification" - two Original Research issues here. 1) No mention of Hendry's record of 13 centuries in main stage. 2) While Bingham did indeed made 4 additional centuries in qualifying, only the main stage centuries are cited in this section (qualifying centuries are in a different source).  Done
  • Qualifying
    • No mention of Kowalski and Yize withdrawing / Hussain and Leclercq replacing at WST Qualifiers. New source needed.
    • cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • No mention of Xiwen, Fu, and Mifsud withdrawing / White, Davison, and Fernandez replacing them as Q school entries. New source needed.
    • cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • Also, since White, Davison, and Fernandez are amateurs, a source that states this could also help, as it'd prevent confusion of why there are 19 amateurs instead of 16.
    • "the 16 amateur players selected to participate in the qualifying rounds" - Kowalski and Yize were selected to play by WPBSA, not Hussain and Leclercq. However, you did mention them earlier in the paragraph (withHussain and Leclercq replacing Kowalski and Yize). If it's easier, you can drop Hussain and Leclercq in the last sentence of the paragraph and adjust the sentence to mention the remaining 14 amateurs. Then, in the first sentence of the paragraph, mention Hussain and Leclercq are amateurs so all are covered.

More to come later --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

  • Format   Done
    • "took place between 17 April and 3 May 2021 at the Crucible Theatre" - BBC Sport has all expect May 3rd for the final. Either source can be swapped out or extra source needed.  Done
    • "The event featured a 32-player main draw contested at the Crucible" - doesn't mention Crucible, so can easily be reworded to "at the Championship" or something similar.  Done
    • Ents24 is a website selling tickets to the championship. I don't think this a high-quality source, nor needed as snooker.org already covers the 2020-21 season in the "last of 15 ranking events" sentence.  Done
    • "It was the 45th consecutive year that the tournament had been held at the Crucible" - Not verified by Historic England, so the source needs swapping out.  Done
    • "sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it has been since 2015" - SBC News says Betfred has sponsored the torunament since 2009, not 2015.  Done
    • "qualified for the main draw as seeded players. Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan was automatically seeded first overall" - not sure if Eurosport if clear enough about the seeded parts to verify. Might be better to combine references with the next one (Race to the Crucible).  Done
    • "released after the 2021 Tour Championship which was the penultimate ranking event of the season." - no mention by WPBSA that Tour Championship was penultimate ranking event.  Done
  • Coverage
    • Not 100% sure about the reliability of Sporting Free per their About Us page. No indication of a editorial team. I don't think this is a high-quality source for FA. Therefore:
      • New source needed to show the Tournament was shown on BBC Television and BBC Online.
      • "Superstars Online, Zhibo.tv, Youku, and CCTV in China; by NowTV in Hong Kong; and by DAZN in Canada, the United States, and Brazil" - majority of this is Original Research. The only channel mentioned by Sporting Free is DAZN. However, it specifically states Canada only, not USA or Brazil. The other channels/countries are not mentioned. There is also the question of whether this is a high-quality source for FA or not. In any case, majority of this sentence is not verified.
    • "broadcast in Europe and Australia by Eurosport, who also covered the qualifying rounds" - Eurosport only mentions it would broadcast the 17 days of the tournament (April 17 - May 3), not the qualifying rounds beforehand.  Done
    • "It was the first and only event of the 2020–21 snooker season not to be staged behind closed doors." - not stated by World Snooker Tour.  Done
  • Prize fund   Done
    • Need source to show maximum break prizes for main stage and qualifying stage (World Snooker Tour doesnt have it).  Done

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Going to have to stop here for several reasons: I don't have access to the Snooker Scene source, so I would need to request access. However, I've been finding Original research issues. If it was simple errors like 6-4 instead of 6-3, that'd be okay. However, there are instances where sentences are not backed up by the sources (i.e. Hendry's record, Fu withdrawing, 2021 Tour Championship being pentultimate, streamed on Superstars Online, etc.) I also do not think Sporting Free or Ents24 are not high-quality sources for FA. Please note I have not gone through the Summary or sub-sections. If you are wanting to me to continue to review the rest, both the Original Research & questions of high-quality sources will need to be addressed first. Let me know what you think. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I just don't understand the FAC process sometimes. What is the point of closing it (for the second time in two months!) before you've even had the chance to respond? Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Pass. I got through most of the comments in around 40 minutes. I'll have to wait 14 days to renominate, so I'll take my time with the rest.duBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC
Hi MrLinkinPark333, I've made a few adjustments per your comments on the FAC - do you mind taking a second look? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
Hey @Lee Vilenski:, here's an updated list as of February 22nd:

Leftover Part 2 @Lee Vilenski:

March 2022 @Lee Vilenski:

  • May 2021 Snooker Scene does not verify all of the amateurs. The ones verified are Leclercq, Quinn and McGuigan. Maybe Mertens and Nuble based on their age. But that's only 5 out of 19. I think maybe a source is needed to show there were 18 amateurs in the tournaments and then mention ones you can verify like Leclercq, Quinn and McGuigan. Otherwise, you could show there were 18 amateurs in the tournament with a source but not mention all 18. I don't know if either would work for you, especially as it effects the Qualifying draw.
  • May 2021 Snooker Scene also doesn't verify 32 professional players or they entered based on their world rankings.
  • MrLinkinPark333 - I'm going to work my way through updating the seeds tomorrow (to be world rankings instead). If I complete that, would you be happy with the remainder of the article? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
    @Lee Vilenski: If you swap it over to world rankings, does that mean you'd be removing the amateur designations as well? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah, that's right. It only really mattered in 2019 when an amateur actually qualified. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
    I've made the changes, although I've retained the Amateur status, as it's shown on the snooker.org draw. Was there anything else? Was thinking of nominating it again today. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
    I think "19 additional amateur players were given places to fill out the remaining places" isnt verified with Snooker Scene magazine. If it is, could you point to me which page(s)? This is also confusing as 112 professsionals+16 amateurs would compete, making it 128 per WPBSA Qualifiers. Why was this increased to 144? MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
    I've just removed "19", and said that amateurs completed the lineup, which is sourced. On the numbers, it wasn't increased. It's 144 because it's 128 (the total in qualifying) plus the 16 automatic qualifiers = a last 144 place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
    In regards to Qualifying draw, there are some errors:
    • Doherty is 95, while Lichtenberg is 96 (Lichtenberg also needs update in Round 2)
    • Pinches is 88, while Vahedi is 89.
    • Lilley is 94, while Carty is 92. (Lilley also needs update in Round 2)
    • Sargeant is 100, while Jianbo is 101 (Sargeant also needs update in Round 2)
    • Pengfei 52 (Round 2)
    • Carrington 54 (Round 2)
    • Grace 53 (Round 2) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have now fixed these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply