2018 World Snooker Championship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can all users who have been/are currently involved in edit warring please discuss their differences HERE before continuing to add/remove content? Andygray110 ( talk)
Dear Mr./MS./Mrs. 46.211.121.120; You are welcome to depict a list of the seeded players. Though it is redundant, as seedings are explained in the "Tournament summary" section and are shown in the brackets of the "Main draw" section. If you want to show how players progress through the tournament, though, you do it for the whole main field. Not half of it. mrloop ( talk) 15:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't spend anymore time on this retard. Others will have to do it. And now he is bringing my twitter-credentials and whereabouts into this again. Earlier on he was "threatening" me with showing up here. I don't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia, but I find it mind boggling, that such behavior is being allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Kirk Larsen ( talk • contribs)
As there is consistent edit warring, a discussion has been opened at the admin edit warring noticeboard. Andygray110 ( talk) 16:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I have full-protected the article for 24 hours to stop everyone here reverting each other. Everyone go and read staying cool when the editing gets hot, calm down, take a deep breath, and resume discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear Mr./Ms./Mrs. 46.211.121.120; thank you for the following comment attached to your latest edit of the page, before it was quarantined: »You personal opinion is not a consensus«. You comment really brought a smile to my face. One single person on this talk page agreed with something you said, and ten seconds later, you stated it as a consensus. Now a couple of people agree, that the section in question should be removed. But according to you, that's just my personal opinion – not a consensus. Really; from the bottom of my heart – thank you for making me laugh. mrloop ( talk) 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Seems an opportune time to see what people think of the " 2018 World Snooker Championship#Representation by country" section. As well as here, we have a similar section in 2016 International Championship, 2016 English Open (snooker), 2016 Northern Ireland Open (called Representation from different countries), 2017 Scottish Open (snooker) and 2018 Welsh Open (snooker). Last year we had a 2017 World Snooker Championship#Nations represented at the Crucible. Otherwise we don't have such a section (correct me if I'm wrong). Personally I'm not a great fan of the idea. Players don't "represent" a country in these events. Some sports use similar tables a lot (eg Darts, also eg 2017 Open Championship#Nationalities in the field) and others not at all (can't find anything at 2017 Wimbledon Championships for instance). Perhaps worth noting that we have various sections, like List of world snooker champions#Champions by country (modern era), Masters (snooker)#Champions by country, Maximum break#Statistics which also contain summaries by country. (I know that similar issues come up with the use of flagicons but that particular issue has been discussed countless times before. At least with the flags we are relatively consistent in our usage in the hundreds of tournaments covered) Nigej ( talk) 07:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The stats section is growing to a ridiculous size. This is not a stats site. I propose that we remove the Whitewashes and Final Frame Decider sections. There are simply a rehash of earlier information and of very little interest. Nigej ( talk) 20:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The players statistics section should be removed entirely. It's pointless trivia. If it's important, it can be written elsewhere in prose. These articles tend to be mostly statistics, whereas they should be mostly prose and description (and other information from the event), with statistics backing it up. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone know what the technical issues with the draw were? "World number 22 Perry called it "an absolute joke" as qualifiers like himself "have no idea when we are playing, have to book hotels and make travel plans". ( https://www.bbc.com/sport/snooker/43814793) Being impartial I couldn't possibly comment. Nigej ( talk) 11:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the comments about the draw warrant a separate section on this page. If the info should be included at all, I think it should be placed in the tournament summary section instead. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen ( talk) 20:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I have placed the article for WP:Copy edit, and has now been completed by Twofingered Typist (who did a fantastic job, as always). Would anyone be against me placing the article for a potential GA nomination? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sportsfan77777 ( talk · contribs) 22:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this article.
Sportsfan77777 (
talk) 22:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Here is my first set of comments:
Done Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Frame | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Players | Session 1: Higgins (3) – Williams (5) | |||||||||||||||||
Higgins | 23 | 15 | 35 | 60 | 120 (119) | 0 | 98 (52) | 82 (59) | N/A | |||||||||
Williams | 75 | 65 | 72 | 70 (55) | 4 | 133 (95) | 0 | 21 | N/A | |||||||||
Players | Session 2: Higgins (4) [7] – Williams (5) [10] | |||||||||||||||||
Higgins | ||||||||||||||||||
Williams |
Shaun Murphy won the match 10–7, and
Stephen Hendry was defeated 7–10Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: Sorry this took so long; I've been busy in real life. The most major comments I have are in the "Overall" section. Everything else is minor, although there are a lot of minor comments, mostly related to the prose. In particular, there are places where details I thought were important are missing (like with the rankings, and the days/times the matches/sessions were played). I had intended to make this a little neater, but I don't want to delay the review any longer. Feel free to add comments/questions/etc. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 17:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: As an update, I added an "Overview" section at the start that explains the format of the event (mostly just pulled from the tournament summary and qualifying sections). This section is intended to handle issues like... you can't say "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the last 32 positions at the 2018 World Snooker Championship" without first specifying that "the main draw features 32 players". I also split off information about who is competing into a "Notable participants" section. This is meant to have the tournament summary better focus on the matches and results.
I think the prose in the "Tournament summary" section still needs to be improved. Individual matches aren't introduced that well, and the broader context either isn't always provided or isn't structured well. This issue is the biggest in the first round, when there are a lot more matches to keep track of. For example, in the first round, it's not clear which players are seeded in each match. For the first round section in particular, I would recommend trying to solve this by sorting the matches first by separating the upsets (where the qualifiers won) from the ones where the seeded players won. Then within each of those two sections, I would suggest sub-sorting the matches chronologically.
@ Lee Vilenski: Here are a few more comments...
I think another issue with the "first round" section is that you don't need to go into that much detail for each of the matches. (Example 1: With "Walden defeated Luca Brecel (seed 13) 10–6; he was comfortably five frames ahead at 8–3, when Brecel won the next three frames to bring the score to 8–6, before Walden won the last two frames of the match." You could just say: "Walden defeated world number 13 Luca Brecel." If Walden started out ahead and ended up winning, do the scores midway through the match really matter?) (Example 2: "Reigning Masters champion Mark Allen defeated debutant Liam Highfield 10–5; neither player scored a century, but Highfield came close with two breaks of 99." Is it actually important that neither player scored a century in a random first round match?) Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
In general, I would suggest removing some of the "distinctions" (e.g. introducing Bingham as 2015 World Champion Stuart Bingham) in the tournament summary prose are excessive. There are eight former world champions in the field, so if you introduce all of them as "20xx World Snooker Champion" or "20xx World Snooker Championship runner-up," no one really stands out. A few of the players do deserve that type of introduction (e.g. the defending champion and a many-time champion like O'Sullivan), but not close to half the field. In particular, I would suggest getting rid of the "distinctions" for "2015 World Snooker Champion" Stuart Bingham, "Two-time champion" Mark Williams, "2013 World Snooker Championship runner-up" Barry Hawkins, "2010 champion" Neil Robertson. Also, I could understand the reigning Masters champion being important, but does the reigning Masters finalist matter? Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, I might consider leaving some of the least important first round matches out altogether, and just stating who advanced out of those. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: I re-did the "first round" section so that it is sorted by (1) the two biggest upsets, (2) the other four upsets, (3) the three world champions who advanced, (4) the other three "exciting matches" (either come-from-behind or 10–9) where seeds won, and (5) the remaining four in chronological order. I left all of the details about how the matches progressed. Does that seem good? Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 06:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, You may have noticed that I've done a ton of stuff on the article over the Christmas break (nothing better to do!) I'm just about finished now, but have still to sort out the First round section, which I've left until last because it's the most complicated and possibly requires the most doctoring. Rather than dive in with my changes I thought it best to talk to you guys first. I also want to address the summarized feedback that Sportsfan77777 made on 22 December in "update and new comment" edit.
As an update, I added an "Overview" section at the start that explains the format of the event (mostly just pulled from the tournament summary and qualifying sections). This section is intended to handle issues like... you can't say "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the last 32 positions at the 2018 World Snooker Championship" without first specifying that "the main draw features 32 players".
→ I've made quite a few changes to the Overview section. I've rewritten the first paragraph to clarify the structure of the tournament, the fact that it consisted of a qualifying draw and main draw both in Sheffield, with precise dates and locations of the two draws. I've removed the historical information as I thought it was out of context and mostly repeated from the lead, so I've confined that material to the lead where it is more appropriate.
In the second paragraph I've tried to make it clear how the rankings affect the seeds in the main draw. Lee will need to check this to make sure I got my facts straight! I've also made changes to the third paragraph but that possibly needs a bit more work...?
I also split off information about who is competing into a "Notable participants" section. This is meant to have the tournament summary better focus on the matches and results.
→ First of all, I don't like the heading "Notable participants" as I agree with Lee that all competitors are "notable" strictly speaking. In terms of Wikipedia lingo, a notable person is someone who has enough about them to warrant a Wikipedia article, and all of our snooker players do! I would prefer to use the word "significant" so maybe something like "Significant participants" or even better "Significant competitors"...?
While looking at this section, I noticed that the wikilinking throughout the article was a little erratic so I tried to sort it out. All significant players should be linked from this Notable participants section as a first point of call for the reader, and then not linked again until lower down the article in the Main draw section, where every player is continuously linked throughout the tournament tree. Other players who do not feature in the Notable participants section should be linked at their first mention and then not again until the Main draw section.
I think the prose in the "Tournament summary" section still needs to be improved. Individual matches aren't introduced that well, and the broader context either isn't always provided or isn't structured well.
→ I've pretty much copyedited the entire Tournament summary section in small chunks and won't bore you with the details here! I'm still working on the First round subsection. To address the problem of clarifying who's who and who upset who, I propose to "tag" every player with their credentials at first mention, i.e. state whether a player is a former world champion or runner-up, plus their seed (for top 16) or current ranking position. For example, Ronnie O'Sullivan should be introduced as "Five-time world champion Ronnie O'Sullivan (2nd seed)" rather than just plain old "Ronnie O'Sullivan". Then the reader can immediately tell in each match who is the more seasoned player and more likely to win the match. To explain all this I will add in my new version of the First round subsection here for your perusal, when it's ready, which should be later today.
This issue is the biggest in the first round, when there are a lot more matches to keep track of. For example, in the first round, it's not clear which players are seeded in each match. For the first round section in particular, I would recommend trying to solve this by sorting the matches first by separating the upsets (where the qualifiers won) from the ones where the seeded players won. Then within each of those two sections, I would suggest sub-sorting the matches chronologically.
→ I've hopefully solved the problem of showing which players are seeded in each match but I've not done anything about actually sorting the matches in order of significance. It might be worth subdividing it further into sub-sub-sections with upsets grouped together first, not sure...
- Yep, common practice for all Snooker articles. We'd love to have them from the event; but I didn't go to the event, and we didn't have any released under free license. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Rodney Baggins ( talk) 10:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I've published a general copyedit of the prose in the main article First round section. Further to that, I suggest adding player credentials on top, as follows:
(start)...
The draw for the opening round of the main tournament was on 19 April 2018, two days before the start of the competition.[13] It was due to take place at 10:00 BST but was delayed until 12:00 BST because of technical issues.[14] The matches for the first round were spread out over six days from 21 to 26 April, and played using a two table setup[b] in the Crucible Theatre. Each first round match was played over two sessions, as best of 19 frames (10 frames needed to win).[4]
There were a total of sixteen first round matches, in which a number of qualifiers defeated seeded players. The defending champion and number one seed, Mark Selby, played qualifier Joe Perry (world number 22), in the opening match of the first round. Perry won the first four frames before pulling away to 7–2 ahead after the first session of play. Selby was unable to catch Perry and was defeated 4–10, ending his 10-match undefeated streak in the world championships, as well as his two-year reign as world champion.[15][16]
Chinese debutant Lyu Haotian defeated Marco Fu (11th seed) in his first round match. Fu had recently undergone eye surgery, to repair retinal degeneration and myodesopsia in his left eye.[17] Lyu was 6–3 up after the first session and went on to win the match 10–5.[18] The 2005 world champion Shaun Murphy (8th seed) played qualifier Jamie Jones (world number 51) in the first round. It was a tight match, with the scores drawing level at various stages, until Jones defeated Murphy 10–9 in a final frame decider.[19] The 2010 world champion Neil Robertson (10th seed) was also defeated, losing 5–10 to qualifier Robert Milkins (world number 37).[20]
Two other qualifiers who won their first round matches were Ricky Walden (world number 27) and Jack Lisowski (world number 30). Walden defeated 13th seed Luca Brecel 10–6; he was comfortably five frames ahead at 8–3, when Brecel won the next three frames to bring the score to 8–6, before Walden won the last two frames of the match.[21] Lisowski defeated the 2015 world champion and 12th seed Stuart Bingham 10–7, thereby securing his first world championship match win.[c][21]
Two-time World Championship runner-up Ali Carter (15th seed) defeated the 2006 world champion Graeme Dott (world number 21) in their first round match 10–8, despite being three frames behind at 3–6 overnight.[22] Five-time world champion Ronnie O'Sullivan (2nd seed) trailed 0–4 and then 3–6 after the opening session in his match against qualifier Stephen Maguire (world number 18), but then won seven of the last eight frames to win 10–7.[23][24] The 16th frame of this encounter was O'Sullivan's 1000th frame win at the Crucible. This was also his 15th consecutive first round victory at the world championships.[16][25]
2018 Masters finalist Kyren Wilson (9th seed) defeated two-time World Championship runner-up Matthew Stevens (world number 52) in their first round match 10–3.[24] In the 12th frame, Stevens accidentally nudged the pink ball with his hand and declared a foul on himself, which allowed Wilson to win the frame, extending his lead to 9–3.[26] The reigning Masters champion Mark Allen (16th seed) defeated debutant Liam Highfield 10–5; neither player scored a century, but Highfield came close with two breaks of 99.[27]
The 2013 runner-up Barry Hawkins (6th seed) defeated qualifier and world number 56 Stuart Carrington 10–7, after winning a 55-minute 14th frame.[19] For the second successive year, the 2016 runner-up Ding Junhui (3rd seed) faced a fellow Chinese player in the first round of the tournament; having defeated Zhou Yuelong in 2017, he faced qualifier Xiao Guodong (world number 25) in 2018. Ding came out as a convincing 10–3 winner, despite losing the opening two frames of the match.[28]
Two-time world champion Mark Williams (7th seed) defeated qualifier Jimmy Robertson (world number 34) in his first round match 10–5. Williams led 7–2 after the initial session, then he hit a tournament highest break (at that point) of 140 in the 13th frame, to go 9–4 ahead, before winning the match after two further frames.[29] Four-time world champion John Higgins (5th seed) defeated Thai debutant Thepchaiya Un-Nooh 10–7. Both players attempted maximum breaks:[30] Higgins missed the 14th red ball on 104 in the 8th frame of the first session; Un-Nooh scored 14 reds with blacks, on course for his second career maximum, before missing the 15th red on 112 in the 12th frame of the final session.[30]
The 14th seed Anthony McGill defeated qualifier and world number 17 Ryan Day 10–8; despite trailing 5–8 earlier in the match, McGill won the last five frames to secure his place in the second round. He said he could not believe that he had won,[31] and the BBC referred to McGill's win as an "unbelievable comeback".[32] The closing match of the first round saw the second final frame decider between the 2011 runner-up Judd Trump (4th seed) and debutant Chris Wakelin. Recovering from 4–8 behind, Wakelin won four frames in a row to draw level at 8–8. They shared the next two frames, bringing the score to nine apiece, before Trump took the deciding frame.[31]
Of the eight former world champions playing in the main stage of the tournament, three won their first round matches to progress to the second round. The three successful players were Ronnie O'Sullivan (five-time champion), John Higgins (four-time champion) and Mark Williams (two-time champion), all professionals since 1992.[33]
...(end)
As I've simply over-written the old version here, you just need to pull up a diff to examine the changes I've made. I've added in the player credentials to hopefully address the issue brought up in Sportsfan's review. Every player in the First round section is now "tagged" with a seed (for the 16 automatic qualifiers) or a world ranking (for the other qualifiers) to distinguish their standing in the tournament and give better context to each of the first round matches. I haven't bothered putting in the rankings for the four debutants but that can easily be arranged if you like. Let me know what you think. I'm now off to the cinema to see Bo Rap (again)! Rodney Baggins ( talk) 16:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Just in case the article is taken over to FAC, here are my thoughts on what might be picked up, as I promised Lee Vilenski I would do (some time ago!!).
That's a quick run-through, happy to expand, re-visit etc! The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Tvx1: How is attempting to comply with the MOS "forcing through personal preferences"? This article is undergoing an FA review and we are being told there that this change is necessary. There is no need for every snooker article do be uniform. Do we even have any FA snooker articles? I doubt it. It would be a real shame if it were to fail over this issue.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 13:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
the name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag. I guess he need to wait for other reviewers to weigh in. One thing that will definitely fail it is an edit war, so I hope we can reach some kind of compromise.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 13:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
"Long time stable version", "before these two arrived", " reported by independent reviewers". Complete WP:OWN. Simple as that. The project is, sadly, doomed while people exercise their preference over MOS. P.S. Your tone and accusations are overt personal attacks Tvx1. You need to stop soonest or else we'll see each other at ANI where "independent reviewers" can assess your attacks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the
nomination page. —
Community Tech bot (
talk) 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
2018 World Snooker Championship is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can all users who have been/are currently involved in edit warring please discuss their differences HERE before continuing to add/remove content? Andygray110 ( talk)
Dear Mr./MS./Mrs. 46.211.121.120; You are welcome to depict a list of the seeded players. Though it is redundant, as seedings are explained in the "Tournament summary" section and are shown in the brackets of the "Main draw" section. If you want to show how players progress through the tournament, though, you do it for the whole main field. Not half of it. mrloop ( talk) 15:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I can't spend anymore time on this retard. Others will have to do it. And now he is bringing my twitter-credentials and whereabouts into this again. Earlier on he was "threatening" me with showing up here. I don't know much about the inner workings of Wikipedia, but I find it mind boggling, that such behavior is being allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Kirk Larsen ( talk • contribs)
As there is consistent edit warring, a discussion has been opened at the admin edit warring noticeboard. Andygray110 ( talk) 16:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I have full-protected the article for 24 hours to stop everyone here reverting each other. Everyone go and read staying cool when the editing gets hot, calm down, take a deep breath, and resume discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Dear Mr./Ms./Mrs. 46.211.121.120; thank you for the following comment attached to your latest edit of the page, before it was quarantined: »You personal opinion is not a consensus«. You comment really brought a smile to my face. One single person on this talk page agreed with something you said, and ten seconds later, you stated it as a consensus. Now a couple of people agree, that the section in question should be removed. But according to you, that's just my personal opinion – not a consensus. Really; from the bottom of my heart – thank you for making me laugh. mrloop ( talk) 16:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Seems an opportune time to see what people think of the " 2018 World Snooker Championship#Representation by country" section. As well as here, we have a similar section in 2016 International Championship, 2016 English Open (snooker), 2016 Northern Ireland Open (called Representation from different countries), 2017 Scottish Open (snooker) and 2018 Welsh Open (snooker). Last year we had a 2017 World Snooker Championship#Nations represented at the Crucible. Otherwise we don't have such a section (correct me if I'm wrong). Personally I'm not a great fan of the idea. Players don't "represent" a country in these events. Some sports use similar tables a lot (eg Darts, also eg 2017 Open Championship#Nationalities in the field) and others not at all (can't find anything at 2017 Wimbledon Championships for instance). Perhaps worth noting that we have various sections, like List of world snooker champions#Champions by country (modern era), Masters (snooker)#Champions by country, Maximum break#Statistics which also contain summaries by country. (I know that similar issues come up with the use of flagicons but that particular issue has been discussed countless times before. At least with the flags we are relatively consistent in our usage in the hundreds of tournaments covered) Nigej ( talk) 07:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The stats section is growing to a ridiculous size. This is not a stats site. I propose that we remove the Whitewashes and Final Frame Decider sections. There are simply a rehash of earlier information and of very little interest. Nigej ( talk) 20:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
The players statistics section should be removed entirely. It's pointless trivia. If it's important, it can be written elsewhere in prose. These articles tend to be mostly statistics, whereas they should be mostly prose and description (and other information from the event), with statistics backing it up. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone know what the technical issues with the draw were? "World number 22 Perry called it "an absolute joke" as qualifiers like himself "have no idea when we are playing, have to book hotels and make travel plans". ( https://www.bbc.com/sport/snooker/43814793) Being impartial I couldn't possibly comment. Nigej ( talk) 11:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the comments about the draw warrant a separate section on this page. If the info should be included at all, I think it should be placed in the tournament summary section instead. ~ Thomas Kirk Larsen ( talk) 20:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I have placed the article for WP:Copy edit, and has now been completed by Twofingered Typist (who did a fantastic job, as always). Would anyone be against me placing the article for a potential GA nomination? Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sportsfan77777 ( talk · contribs) 22:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this article.
Sportsfan77777 (
talk) 22:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Here is my first set of comments:
Done Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 16:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Frame | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Players | Session 1: Higgins (3) – Williams (5) | |||||||||||||||||
Higgins | 23 | 15 | 35 | 60 | 120 (119) | 0 | 98 (52) | 82 (59) | N/A | |||||||||
Williams | 75 | 65 | 72 | 70 (55) | 4 | 133 (95) | 0 | 21 | N/A | |||||||||
Players | Session 2: Higgins (4) [7] – Williams (5) [10] | |||||||||||||||||
Higgins | ||||||||||||||||||
Williams |
Shaun Murphy won the match 10–7, and
Stephen Hendry was defeated 7–10Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: Sorry this took so long; I've been busy in real life. The most major comments I have are in the "Overall" section. Everything else is minor, although there are a lot of minor comments, mostly related to the prose. In particular, there are places where details I thought were important are missing (like with the rankings, and the days/times the matches/sessions were played). I had intended to make this a little neater, but I don't want to delay the review any longer. Feel free to add comments/questions/etc. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 17:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: As an update, I added an "Overview" section at the start that explains the format of the event (mostly just pulled from the tournament summary and qualifying sections). This section is intended to handle issues like... you can't say "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the last 32 positions at the 2018 World Snooker Championship" without first specifying that "the main draw features 32 players". I also split off information about who is competing into a "Notable participants" section. This is meant to have the tournament summary better focus on the matches and results.
I think the prose in the "Tournament summary" section still needs to be improved. Individual matches aren't introduced that well, and the broader context either isn't always provided or isn't structured well. This issue is the biggest in the first round, when there are a lot more matches to keep track of. For example, in the first round, it's not clear which players are seeded in each match. For the first round section in particular, I would recommend trying to solve this by sorting the matches first by separating the upsets (where the qualifiers won) from the ones where the seeded players won. Then within each of those two sections, I would suggest sub-sorting the matches chronologically.
@ Lee Vilenski: Here are a few more comments...
I think another issue with the "first round" section is that you don't need to go into that much detail for each of the matches. (Example 1: With "Walden defeated Luca Brecel (seed 13) 10–6; he was comfortably five frames ahead at 8–3, when Brecel won the next three frames to bring the score to 8–6, before Walden won the last two frames of the match." You could just say: "Walden defeated world number 13 Luca Brecel." If Walden started out ahead and ended up winning, do the scores midway through the match really matter?) (Example 2: "Reigning Masters champion Mark Allen defeated debutant Liam Highfield 10–5; neither player scored a century, but Highfield came close with two breaks of 99." Is it actually important that neither player scored a century in a random first round match?) Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
In general, I would suggest removing some of the "distinctions" (e.g. introducing Bingham as 2015 World Champion Stuart Bingham) in the tournament summary prose are excessive. There are eight former world champions in the field, so if you introduce all of them as "20xx World Snooker Champion" or "20xx World Snooker Championship runner-up," no one really stands out. A few of the players do deserve that type of introduction (e.g. the defending champion and a many-time champion like O'Sullivan), but not close to half the field. In particular, I would suggest getting rid of the "distinctions" for "2015 World Snooker Champion" Stuart Bingham, "Two-time champion" Mark Williams, "2013 World Snooker Championship runner-up" Barry Hawkins, "2010 champion" Neil Robertson. Also, I could understand the reigning Masters champion being important, but does the reigning Masters finalist matter? Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, I might consider leaving some of the least important first round matches out altogether, and just stating who advanced out of those. Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 03:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Lee Vilenski: I re-did the "first round" section so that it is sorted by (1) the two biggest upsets, (2) the other four upsets, (3) the three world champions who advanced, (4) the other three "exciting matches" (either come-from-behind or 10–9) where seeds won, and (5) the remaining four in chronological order. I left all of the details about how the matches progressed. Does that seem good? Sportsfan77777 ( talk) 06:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, You may have noticed that I've done a ton of stuff on the article over the Christmas break (nothing better to do!) I'm just about finished now, but have still to sort out the First round section, which I've left until last because it's the most complicated and possibly requires the most doctoring. Rather than dive in with my changes I thought it best to talk to you guys first. I also want to address the summarized feedback that Sportsfan77777 made on 22 December in "update and new comment" edit.
As an update, I added an "Overview" section at the start that explains the format of the event (mostly just pulled from the tournament summary and qualifying sections). This section is intended to handle issues like... you can't say "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the last 32 positions at the 2018 World Snooker Championship" without first specifying that "the main draw features 32 players".
→ I've made quite a few changes to the Overview section. I've rewritten the first paragraph to clarify the structure of the tournament, the fact that it consisted of a qualifying draw and main draw both in Sheffield, with precise dates and locations of the two draws. I've removed the historical information as I thought it was out of context and mostly repeated from the lead, so I've confined that material to the lead where it is more appropriate.
In the second paragraph I've tried to make it clear how the rankings affect the seeds in the main draw. Lee will need to check this to make sure I got my facts straight! I've also made changes to the third paragraph but that possibly needs a bit more work...?
I also split off information about who is competing into a "Notable participants" section. This is meant to have the tournament summary better focus on the matches and results.
→ First of all, I don't like the heading "Notable participants" as I agree with Lee that all competitors are "notable" strictly speaking. In terms of Wikipedia lingo, a notable person is someone who has enough about them to warrant a Wikipedia article, and all of our snooker players do! I would prefer to use the word "significant" so maybe something like "Significant participants" or even better "Significant competitors"...?
While looking at this section, I noticed that the wikilinking throughout the article was a little erratic so I tried to sort it out. All significant players should be linked from this Notable participants section as a first point of call for the reader, and then not linked again until lower down the article in the Main draw section, where every player is continuously linked throughout the tournament tree. Other players who do not feature in the Notable participants section should be linked at their first mention and then not again until the Main draw section.
I think the prose in the "Tournament summary" section still needs to be improved. Individual matches aren't introduced that well, and the broader context either isn't always provided or isn't structured well.
→ I've pretty much copyedited the entire Tournament summary section in small chunks and won't bore you with the details here! I'm still working on the First round subsection. To address the problem of clarifying who's who and who upset who, I propose to "tag" every player with their credentials at first mention, i.e. state whether a player is a former world champion or runner-up, plus their seed (for top 16) or current ranking position. For example, Ronnie O'Sullivan should be introduced as "Five-time world champion Ronnie O'Sullivan (2nd seed)" rather than just plain old "Ronnie O'Sullivan". Then the reader can immediately tell in each match who is the more seasoned player and more likely to win the match. To explain all this I will add in my new version of the First round subsection here for your perusal, when it's ready, which should be later today.
This issue is the biggest in the first round, when there are a lot more matches to keep track of. For example, in the first round, it's not clear which players are seeded in each match. For the first round section in particular, I would recommend trying to solve this by sorting the matches first by separating the upsets (where the qualifiers won) from the ones where the seeded players won. Then within each of those two sections, I would suggest sub-sorting the matches chronologically.
→ I've hopefully solved the problem of showing which players are seeded in each match but I've not done anything about actually sorting the matches in order of significance. It might be worth subdividing it further into sub-sub-sections with upsets grouped together first, not sure...
- Yep, common practice for all Snooker articles. We'd love to have them from the event; but I didn't go to the event, and we didn't have any released under free license. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Rodney Baggins ( talk) 10:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I've published a general copyedit of the prose in the main article First round section. Further to that, I suggest adding player credentials on top, as follows:
(start)...
The draw for the opening round of the main tournament was on 19 April 2018, two days before the start of the competition.[13] It was due to take place at 10:00 BST but was delayed until 12:00 BST because of technical issues.[14] The matches for the first round were spread out over six days from 21 to 26 April, and played using a two table setup[b] in the Crucible Theatre. Each first round match was played over two sessions, as best of 19 frames (10 frames needed to win).[4]
There were a total of sixteen first round matches, in which a number of qualifiers defeated seeded players. The defending champion and number one seed, Mark Selby, played qualifier Joe Perry (world number 22), in the opening match of the first round. Perry won the first four frames before pulling away to 7–2 ahead after the first session of play. Selby was unable to catch Perry and was defeated 4–10, ending his 10-match undefeated streak in the world championships, as well as his two-year reign as world champion.[15][16]
Chinese debutant Lyu Haotian defeated Marco Fu (11th seed) in his first round match. Fu had recently undergone eye surgery, to repair retinal degeneration and myodesopsia in his left eye.[17] Lyu was 6–3 up after the first session and went on to win the match 10–5.[18] The 2005 world champion Shaun Murphy (8th seed) played qualifier Jamie Jones (world number 51) in the first round. It was a tight match, with the scores drawing level at various stages, until Jones defeated Murphy 10–9 in a final frame decider.[19] The 2010 world champion Neil Robertson (10th seed) was also defeated, losing 5–10 to qualifier Robert Milkins (world number 37).[20]
Two other qualifiers who won their first round matches were Ricky Walden (world number 27) and Jack Lisowski (world number 30). Walden defeated 13th seed Luca Brecel 10–6; he was comfortably five frames ahead at 8–3, when Brecel won the next three frames to bring the score to 8–6, before Walden won the last two frames of the match.[21] Lisowski defeated the 2015 world champion and 12th seed Stuart Bingham 10–7, thereby securing his first world championship match win.[c][21]
Two-time World Championship runner-up Ali Carter (15th seed) defeated the 2006 world champion Graeme Dott (world number 21) in their first round match 10–8, despite being three frames behind at 3–6 overnight.[22] Five-time world champion Ronnie O'Sullivan (2nd seed) trailed 0–4 and then 3–6 after the opening session in his match against qualifier Stephen Maguire (world number 18), but then won seven of the last eight frames to win 10–7.[23][24] The 16th frame of this encounter was O'Sullivan's 1000th frame win at the Crucible. This was also his 15th consecutive first round victory at the world championships.[16][25]
2018 Masters finalist Kyren Wilson (9th seed) defeated two-time World Championship runner-up Matthew Stevens (world number 52) in their first round match 10–3.[24] In the 12th frame, Stevens accidentally nudged the pink ball with his hand and declared a foul on himself, which allowed Wilson to win the frame, extending his lead to 9–3.[26] The reigning Masters champion Mark Allen (16th seed) defeated debutant Liam Highfield 10–5; neither player scored a century, but Highfield came close with two breaks of 99.[27]
The 2013 runner-up Barry Hawkins (6th seed) defeated qualifier and world number 56 Stuart Carrington 10–7, after winning a 55-minute 14th frame.[19] For the second successive year, the 2016 runner-up Ding Junhui (3rd seed) faced a fellow Chinese player in the first round of the tournament; having defeated Zhou Yuelong in 2017, he faced qualifier Xiao Guodong (world number 25) in 2018. Ding came out as a convincing 10–3 winner, despite losing the opening two frames of the match.[28]
Two-time world champion Mark Williams (7th seed) defeated qualifier Jimmy Robertson (world number 34) in his first round match 10–5. Williams led 7–2 after the initial session, then he hit a tournament highest break (at that point) of 140 in the 13th frame, to go 9–4 ahead, before winning the match after two further frames.[29] Four-time world champion John Higgins (5th seed) defeated Thai debutant Thepchaiya Un-Nooh 10–7. Both players attempted maximum breaks:[30] Higgins missed the 14th red ball on 104 in the 8th frame of the first session; Un-Nooh scored 14 reds with blacks, on course for his second career maximum, before missing the 15th red on 112 in the 12th frame of the final session.[30]
The 14th seed Anthony McGill defeated qualifier and world number 17 Ryan Day 10–8; despite trailing 5–8 earlier in the match, McGill won the last five frames to secure his place in the second round. He said he could not believe that he had won,[31] and the BBC referred to McGill's win as an "unbelievable comeback".[32] The closing match of the first round saw the second final frame decider between the 2011 runner-up Judd Trump (4th seed) and debutant Chris Wakelin. Recovering from 4–8 behind, Wakelin won four frames in a row to draw level at 8–8. They shared the next two frames, bringing the score to nine apiece, before Trump took the deciding frame.[31]
Of the eight former world champions playing in the main stage of the tournament, three won their first round matches to progress to the second round. The three successful players were Ronnie O'Sullivan (five-time champion), John Higgins (four-time champion) and Mark Williams (two-time champion), all professionals since 1992.[33]
...(end)
As I've simply over-written the old version here, you just need to pull up a diff to examine the changes I've made. I've added in the player credentials to hopefully address the issue brought up in Sportsfan's review. Every player in the First round section is now "tagged" with a seed (for the 16 automatic qualifiers) or a world ranking (for the other qualifiers) to distinguish their standing in the tournament and give better context to each of the first round matches. I haven't bothered putting in the rankings for the four debutants but that can easily be arranged if you like. Let me know what you think. I'm now off to the cinema to see Bo Rap (again)! Rodney Baggins ( talk) 16:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Just in case the article is taken over to FAC, here are my thoughts on what might be picked up, as I promised Lee Vilenski I would do (some time ago!!).
That's a quick run-through, happy to expand, re-visit etc! The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Tvx1: How is attempting to comply with the MOS "forcing through personal preferences"? This article is undergoing an FA review and we are being told there that this change is necessary. There is no need for every snooker article do be uniform. Do we even have any FA snooker articles? I doubt it. It would be a real shame if it were to fail over this issue.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 13:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
the name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag. I guess he need to wait for other reviewers to weigh in. One thing that will definitely fail it is an edit war, so I hope we can reach some kind of compromise.-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 13:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
"Long time stable version", "before these two arrived", " reported by independent reviewers". Complete WP:OWN. Simple as that. The project is, sadly, doomed while people exercise their preference over MOS. P.S. Your tone and accusations are overt personal attacks Tvx1. You need to stop soonest or else we'll see each other at ANI where "independent reviewers" can assess your attacks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the
nomination page. —
Community Tech bot (
talk) 21:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).