Talk:1972 World Snooker Championship/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 18:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have not reviewed an article on snooker before but, having been impressed by the work of BennyOnTheLoose as part of the WiG "Women and the Environment" editathon event, I thought this would be interesting. A review will follow shortly. simongraham (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Review
This is a stable and well-written article. 81.6% of authorship is by BennyOnTheLoose. It is currently ranked C class.


 * The article is of appropriate length, 1,793 words of readable prose, plus an infobox.
 * The lead looks small, with only 121 words split into two paragraphs. I suggest making it a single paragraph and/or adding a bit more. I suggest including something about the challenges that were experienced during the games and more on the long-term impacts.
 * Ive added to the lead per your suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks great. simongraham (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It is written in a summary style, consistent with relevant Manuals of Style.
 * Earwig's Copyvio Detector identifies that "violation unlikely", with the highest similarity online 5.7% with the history page of the WPSBA.
 * Citations seem to be thorough.
 * Chris Turner's and the Global Snooker websites seem to be self-published. The Global Snooker Centre also seems to be a fansite. As per WP:SPS these are to be avoided. Please replace the references with reliable sources.
 * The discussion about Turner's site has now been archived here. Let me know if you're happy with it's use here. I've replaced the Global Snooker refs. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks fair. Hopefully that will enable other articles to have an easier passage through to GA. simongraham (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a nice piece in the Belfast Telegraph by Mark Bain in 26 February 2022 celebrating 50 years of the event. I suggest referencing this if you can.
 * I did add a little detail from there - let me know if you think there's anything else specific that could be used. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nicely done. I think that is probably enough. simongraham (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The other references appear to be from a wide range of reputable sources.
 * The text seems to be neutral and shows a balanced perspective.
 * Suggest linking the venues (e.g. Bolton, Ealing, Sheffield and Southampton).
 * Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Suggest linking mobile generator and lift.
 * Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The sentence "There was an entry fee of £100 per player, with the intention that the winner would receive 60% of the combined entry fees, and the winner 40%, with gate receipts after expenses also going to players." seems confusing. If the winner received both 60% and 40%, would it not be easier to say that they received 100%, or is it the runner-up that received 40%?
 * It was the runner-up. Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe that "Ecclesfield Ex-servicemen's Club" should be "Ecclesfield Ex-Servicemen's Club", although Google has not heard of the venue. Please check this is correct.
 * Yes, the S in Servicemen's is capitalised per the source I added. (I found one reference to the club on Google books.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "Pulman took a 2–0 lead against Higgins, but was 2–3 behind before finish their first day the odd frame ahead at 4–3." does not read well. Please amend the grammar.
 * Replace "Spencer then produce his third century break of the match" with "Spencer then produced his third century break of the match".
 * Suggest replacing "whilst" with "while" as I feel it is better understood by an international audience.
 * Amended per the three points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.
 * The comment on the increased news attention is excellent, but I think needs more support from sources if possible. I also believe the Championship was sponsored after 1976. Is this also a consequence of the better coverage? Can this be justified from reputable sources?
 * Amended the references, let me know what you think now. In terms of sponsorship, Park Drive sponsored the 1973 tournament (more details now in the article) and the 1974 one (£10,000 prize money). There was no sponsor in 1975, then Embassy started their sponsorship in 1976 (£15,300). There are reliable sources, but I wasn't keen to add too much to an article that should mainly focus on 1972. Again, let me know what you think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. I think that looks a good balance between too little and too much. simongraham (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion in the talk page on Spencer's final score that has been resolved by consensus.
 * There is no evidence of edit wars.
 * The article has no images. I suggest adding some appropriate illustrations, such as a photo of the young Alex Higgins (although there does not seem to be one from 1972 currently on Wikimedia commons), of John Spencer (there is one of him from 1971 [|here]) or of the trophy.
 * I've really got doubts about whether the Spencer picture is the original uploader's own work - looks like quite a few files that they uploaded have been deleted from Commons, and the image looks very much like a scan from a newspaper or magazine. (Similarly, I really have concerns about the 1968 picture of Higgins on Commons.) The trophy used in 1972 was the one from the World Professional Match-play Championship, not the current one that dates from 1927. I'll have a think about pictures. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work so far. I have a few comments. Please tell me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, . I've made a start on addressing your comments. If you don't mind, could you allow me a few days to see if there is a consensus about Chris Turner's site? I've posted something at the reliable sources noticeboard here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is fine. Please ping me when you are ready. simongraham (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the long delay. Hopefully I've addressed most of your concerns now. I'm still a bit doubtful about pictures, but if you think and/or  are OK, then I'll add the appropriate cropped versions. 14:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is perfectly reasonable. I feel either of those could work well if suitably cropped. I find that an image in the infobox makes a big difference to the way that I look at an entry and how important I think it is. simongraham (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Template:Infobox individual snooker tournament only has a "logo" parameter, not a general image one, so I added images in the body. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That looks excellent. I'll complete the assessment now. simongraham (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Assessment
The six good article criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonable well written.
 * the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
 * it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
 * all inline citations are from reliable sources;
 * it contains no original research;
 * it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * 1) It has a neutral point of view.
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Congratulations, BennyOnTheLoose. This article meets the criteria to be a Good Article.

Pass  simongraham (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)