Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1982 World Snooker Championship/archive1

1982 World Snooker Championship

 * Nominator(s): Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC), User:BennyOnTheLoose

This article is about the 1982 entry into the World Snooker Championship. Steve Davis has ascended to the top of the pyramid, and won the 1981 event. He's the favourite, but ends up winning just one frame as he loses 1-10 in his opening round match. Six-time champion Ray Reardon and controversial figure Alex Higgins contest the final, with Higgins coming out on top, his second title. This was the first event to have the modern style event, with 32 participants, sixteen of which coming through a qualification round. (the year prior it was a 24-man tournament). It's a great event, and I look forward to your comments. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - on a point of order, I assume this is a joint nomination with ...? I will be back for a review in due course! Cheers. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Lee? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The prose is not FA standard. Here are some examples: I think the article would benefit from a copy-edit by someone new to the article. -Graham Beards (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Confusing repetition "a pre-tournament qualification tournament"
 * So I've changed the second tournament to "event". It was a qualification event for 48 participants over two rounds to be one of 16 qualifiers, and took place before the event. Let me know if there is a better wording for this. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong tense "Knowles claimed that he has gone to a nightclub until 2:00 am the previous night"
 * Changed to "had" Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This lacks flow " Cliff Wilson had been taking medication for a viral infection. Suffering from chest pains, he was concerned that he was having a heart attack, but testing showed that he wasn't." When was the testing done? While he thought he was having an attack? The bit about the viral infection needs to come later, and we don't use contractions.
 * I don't have much in the way of info as to when, other than saying it happened after the match. might have some additional details. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Amended the text, as Snooker Scene has a different version of what happened. I've kept what both sources agree on. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Vison aids" why not just say his glasses?
 * Well, he never used to play in glasses, til he got his iconic glasses a year later. This is to say he didn't go and get another pair of contacts, or wear glasses Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redundancy "He trailed Silvino Francisco 2–7 Francsisco"
 * Typo has been fixed. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here " John Virgo defeated Mike Hallett 10–4 after leading 7–2, Jim Donnelly was the first Scottish player to play at the Crucible" where's the logical flow?
 * Reordered Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This doesn't make sense "and after Donnelley had won taken further frames"
 * I have reworded this Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Here it is not clear who "their" refers to "Terry Griffiths, who had become the bookmakers favourite to win following the elimination of Steve Davis, led 4–2 but finished their first session behind 4–5 to Willie Thorne"
 * I'm a bit surprised that this isn't clear, their session would be the first session of the match between the two players, but I've reworded regardless. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "Fluked a brown" needs more explanation
 * I have added a glossary link for this (both items). We could say that he received some luck or similar to explain it a bit better. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fused participle "The scores were also level at 13–13, with Higgins scoring only nine points across two frames" (..and Higgins scored...)
 * I'm not sure I understand what WP:PLUSING is, I've taken a decent look into it, but I can't get my head around what the issue actually is. Happy to change these individual points if there is better wording. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done a thorough copyedit on the article (as I always intended to), I can see what you mean, but I think an oppose is a bit strong. Maybe you could give it another look through and see if you are happier? Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought Tony's explanation was quite clear on the problem. You have used this construction a lot in the article:
 * "He moved to 9–7 ahead,[28] with Mountjoy then winning three consecutive frames."
 * "The scores were also level at 13–13, with Higgins scoring only nine points across two frames as White moved into a 15–13 lead, two frames ahead with three to play."
 * "A break of 83 in the first frame of the second session saw Charlton level the match at 4–4, with Reardon then moving a frame ahead again with a break of 98."
 * "In the third session, the score went to 8–8 with Reardon then compiling breaks of 94 and 77 to win the next two."
 * "Reardon was 6–4 ahead when he missed potting a pink, with Higgins going on to win that frame."
 * "This was reduced as Reardon won frames 22 and 23, the session ending with Higgins leading 13–12."
 * "With Higgins showing signs of nerves"
 * These constructions occur often in spoken English but can lead to ambiguity in writing. Professional writers avoid them. In all the years Brian Boulton was contributing his numerous FAs, I never saw him use one. In my view, they are a sign of amateurish writing. You may disagree. Graham Beards (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * All my examples have not been addressed ("but later testing showed that he wasn't). It would be best if you answered (or contested) my points individually. You have gone on to add another fused participle here "with Reardon then compiling breaks of 94 and 77 to win", which implies that you are happy using them—and that's OK as long as you say why you disagree with me. Graham Beards (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, no issues, I'll respond above Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note
This three weeks in and has attracted no supports and has an open oppose. Unless this changes quite a bit within the next day or two I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this one has certainly stalled so best archived now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)