Talk:2021 Masters (snooker)

Accuracy
, regarding these two edits, the article currently says:
 * Steve Davis referred to Yan as "naive" and that he needed a "flying start and get his tail up" to win the match in the second session.

However, the facts, as reported by the inline source, are as follows: Even though there was no crowd, the tension can arrive on a snooker table between two players, the pressures are still there. You have to pot the balls and put the last one in to kill off frames.
 * 1) The source says "Possessing a solid and unspectacular style of play, Yan displayed some naive shot selection at times in the opening session, but his calm demeanour never changes and he recovered to shock the heavy pre-match favourite." In this sentence, some of his shots were criticized as naive, and nowhere is this criticism attributed to Steve Davis.
 * 2) The above quoted words "flying start and get his tail up" do not appear anywhere in the source text. Nothing remotely similar is said; the words "flying" or "tail" do not appear at all, much less attributed to Davis.
 * 3) The only words attributed to Davis in the source are:

"We see it so often that players bottle it under pressure but fantastic for Yan, he played so well.

"There will be millions of people watching back in China who will know he has a chance at the World Championship coming up.

"I was impressed with his temperament, his nerve and that was as mature a performance we've seen since we saw John Higgins win here. So, virtually nothing in the disputed sentence corresponds to what the source actually said. GregorB (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like the BBC article was updated at the end of the final and the wording doesn't now appear in the article. You can see Davis's comment here at 16:17 on 17 Jan, so that link could be used to support the quote. --Bcp67 (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Check the archived copy, which is the one that was being sourced. These news sources are quite often usurped like this. The archived copy IS in the source provided. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Internet archive is down at the moment, but AGF on that, and problem solved. The statement caught my attention because it seemed a bit disparaging, and it deviated quite a bit in tone from Davis' final remarks - but that's not too surprising really, because Yan was trailing at the time. GregorB (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Personally, I can do without statements like "Steve Davis said ...", even if they are sourced. Such comments are ok on the back page of a newspaper, but we're meant to be an encyclopedia. Nigej (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. Having colour describing the matches is quite suitable. We would have what the players say about themselves in a summary and having expert opinions regarding how the play was is significantly better than us writing how the session played out in wikipedia's voice. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * However, per WP:UNDUE, just cherry-picking a few quotes from Steve Davis doesn't really give an unbiased view of things. How do we cover all experts' opinions; just impossible. Better to have none. IMO Nigej (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hardly cherry picking, considering quotes are used throughout the article in this way. It's hardly a minority viewpoint, which is what UNDUE refers to. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course expert commentary is relevant, and there is no doubt Steve Davis is an expert. What is slightly concerning to me here is whether reducing his comments to a single dismissive statement is actually representative of his views or not (cf. quote given above: "impressed with his temperament, his nerve"). GregorB (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If Steve Davis had written a book on the Masters or Yan Bingtao, then his considered comments would perhaps be worth noting. But surely a few spur-of-the-moment throw-away remarks made during hours of commentary shouldn't be here. Nigej (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The fact these were removed from the final version of the article also suggests they are of lesser importance. GregorB (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean we can remove these, but I feel a comment about the first session, and a similar one after the event, saying how he was impressed with his temperament is quite representative of the final. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)