Talk:1948 World Snooker Championship

1948 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: October 20, 2022. (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[edit]

Passed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:1948 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links[edit]

Prose[edit]

Lede[edit]

Link the sport. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many people were in the qualifying event? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended per both points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

I still think the info on how the event is played - such as the format of the matches, the way qualifying worked, the defending champ etc is suitable for its own section. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a new "format" section. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eight were placed in "Section B", which was to produce one qualifier to join the other seven players in "Section A", the main competition. - this wasn't at random though was it? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, although sources are silent on this point. (My guess would be it was a commercial decision, with the BACC looking to maximise their cut of the gate receipts.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
before Brown won the next two for a 36–35 deciding frame victory - I feel like a best-of-71 match going to a deciding frame could do with a little bit more prose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the match got very little coverage - for example, the reports of the victory said no more than than the equivalent of "Smith won five consecutive frames, before Brown won the next two for a 36–35 deciding frame victory". In most of the few papers that covered it, the reports of this contest were were below almost-equally-short decriptions of a match between Fred Davis and Walter Donaldson at Leicester Square Hall. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
match finished 46–25.[31] Donaldson and Albert Brown were level at 3–3 after their first semi-final - I feel like we should at least split the semis and quarters by a para break. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we make the sources for the main draw into a sentence? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The final first-round matches between - *match. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following century breaks were made during the tournament: - I feel like we could give a bit more info, like prose for who got the most/amount. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a bit - but it's not known which frame Davis's 109 was in, only that it was somewhere between frames 61 to 71. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments[edit]

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Lee Vilenski. I've replied above. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.