Talk:1976 World Snooker Championship/GA1

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

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 18:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

These are so easy, I might as well grab the rest. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Same as the others - using 1980 as the standard to compare to.


 * I think the lead could be trimmed a touch. The details of what Reardon wanted changed, and of the issues with Charlton's table, are probably not necessary and could be reduced to something like "During the 1976 finale, Reardon made several complaints about the environment, which was adjusted to accommodate him. Charlton had complained earlier about a table, which was found to be non-standard, invalidating his break of 137." (Obviously it doesn't have to be that wording exactly)
 * Alternately (having read farther into the article now and seeing that Reardon made other complaints), you could do a short paragraph about players reporting issues with the environment
 * No gripes through to the last paragraph of overview - the whole para is about the sponsorship, and then the last sentence is about the venue. Can we move that elsewhere? I just realized that it doesn't mention Middlesbrough Town Hall, and Wythenshawe Forum in the actual body until much later, so maybe a paragraph about the venues could be in order.
 * Again, I compliment your ability to condense matches down neatly while pulling interesting highlights without overdoing them. It's a nice balance.
 * First paragraph in Final is very long, I would suggest trying to find somewhere to split it if possible
 * "He won the 31st frame after needing snookers." Maybe it's just that I don't know the sport, but this sentence doesn't seem to flow right. He needed snookers to do what?
 * "Timms awarded Higgins a free ball" do we know what for? A foul of some kind, I'm assuming?
 * "his fifth title victory at with a session to spare." some words are missing here I think
 * No further prose gripes
 * That's it - the rest is tables and stats looks fine to me
 * Images are appropriately used, freely licensed, and properly captioned
 * No concerns about sourcing, which is in line with other snooker articles
 * Taking the offline sources on GF, I have no concerns with the spot checks on online sources
 * No CV or close paraphrasing issues either

As with the other WSC articles I've reviewed, this is sufficient to pass GACR in its current state, and the rest are suggestions. (I would stress the first two suggestions, even if you make no other changes). &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)