Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Snooker world rankings 2020/2021/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Snooker world rankings 2020/2021 edit

2021 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent promotion of Snooker world rankings 2019/2020, I thought I'd have another crack at it. Trump held the number one spot all season, winning five ranking events, ahead of Mark Selby who won the world championship. Let me know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • "Judd Trump began the season as the world number one and retaining the position throughout the season" => "Judd Trump began the season as the world number one and retained the position throughout the season"
  • "Trump began the season with over a 500,000 point lead" => "Trump began the season with a lead of over 500,000 points"
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • ALT text could be bit better than just "Photo".
  • Licencing fine; just a full stop needed for the caption.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made all of the changes above @Kavyansh.Singh and ChrisTheDude:. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for image review. Would appreciate if you could just do an image review for this nomination (just 1 image) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from BennyOnTheLoose
  • Could add a page description.
    • Intentionally blank, I can't think of anything more succinct than the page name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's probably worth mentioning that only the top 64, plus those with another year to run on a two-year card, and the top 8 from 2020/21 if not otherwise qualified, remained on the main tour.
    • Sure. As you know this can be a bit more complicated than that, as also those who are in the top 4 of the one year list qualify, as well as anyone who qualifies for the main stage of the WSC. It's a balance between being thorough, and not going off topic. I'm not sure either way, if I'm honest. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Snooker Scene for June 2021 says that it's top 8 from the one-year list and didn't mention WSC main stage, but they've been wrong before; and consistent rules seem to be less important than commercial considerations for the snooker authorities, so maybe they changed it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snooker Scene (June 2021) comments on the end-of-season rankings include that Trump was nearly a million points ahead for most of the season, and that Selby won most points in 20/21 (820,500 to Trump's 573,500).Jordan Brown (Welsh Open Champion) was the highest ranked one-season pro, at 40th. None of these are essential points for the wikipedia article IMO but I think it would be worth looking at that article as there's probably not going to be any other independent source with as much commentary/opionion.
    • Yeah, it's probably a good point. I'll check over the article when I get chance. Tbf, he was about 800,000 points ahead for most of the season, and only just under a million for a little bit. It could be added, but I feel like as we give the totals, just prose on who held the spot throughout the year is enough. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have a source for Note 10 (about withdrawals)?
    • I went ahead and removed it. We'd be better to cite the actual instances if we know about it, but it's news to me if it happened at any time in the season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest running IABot to archive all sources possible. (e.g. 9, 10, and 26)
  • Some inconsistency in refs, e.g. 9 and 10 are both wst.tv but appear differently. ("WST" may be more accurate after Jan 2020 - see https://wpbsa.com/wst-brand-relaunch-for-snooker-as-part-of-global-vision/ from 9 January 2020).
  • Refs 7 and 11 are the same source as each other.
  • Ref 12 looks incomplete.
  • With some script or other, Refs 12 and 13 show "CS1 maint: url-status"
  • "The events that made up the 1976–77 snooker season were the first to award players with ranking points" - Source says "Rankings were only introduced after the World Championship of 1976." The first offical ranking list (Snooker world rankings 1976/1977) used points based on 1974 to 1976 results, using a system that was published in 1975 (or possibly even earlier). I think the text could be reworked (e.g. "...were first used in the the 1976–77 snooker season...") even though what's there now is a fair reading of the source used. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably all a bit of a muchness, but I have made the change. I think it's mostly relevant that the points only made a difference during this season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • Made some very minor edits.
  • Mostly just glanced over the tables cuz of their size, but support on the basis of prose as I don't see anything that requires correction or adjustment. Nice work! AryKun (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM edit

  • I thought per MOS we could drop the century for consecutive years? Plus it's odd the title here is 2020/2021 while the "main article" is at 2020–21.... slash, dash, digits??
    • Yeah, I agree. This has been discussed, at Talk:Snooker world rankings 2019/2020, but this was the solution. SMcCandlish gave an indepth view on this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think it should probably be consistent between related articles. The "2021–22" style is a poor idea for a long series of article names, because 2009–10 looks too much like 2009-10, i.e. October 2009. But if we're dead-set on using it for the snooker season articles, then we should also use it for the rankings articles. It would be better to rename the season articles, though. Regardless, I don't think this question should in any way hold up FAC matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "given "ranking" status" why in quotes? The previous sentence used "ranking" without quotes.
  • "The events that made up the 1976–77 snooker season were the first to use ranking points.[1]" This appears to be a near-repeat of the latter portion of the opening sentence.
  • "won ranking points based entirely on prize money won" won ... won.
  • "began the season as the world number one and retained the position throughout the season, winning five ranking events through the season" triple season.
  • Should say that the picture of Trump is from 2015, not the season in question.
  • "2018/2019 points dropped" again, why not be consistent with the "main" article nomenclature?
  • "with ten revisions after specific tournaments" but the table lists only eight revisions?
  • "Sources:[10][8][7]" numerical order.
  • Suddenly there's a "Revision 0", when was that from?
  • And a revision 9?
  • I think my confusion here is from the lead's description of how the ranking window works. Perhaps some more clarity could be offered?
  • Does each tournament offer a differing number of ranking points? It's not very reasonable to compare the revision standings without knowing how much each tournament was worth?
    • Well, that's both true and not true. Events have different point totals (so, the world championship is worth significantly more than any other event), however, players lose points from the event two years ago. So, theoretically, you have chance to also lose points during the same revision. Considering we specifically give the points made in a lower table. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12 for instance has the publisher name in the title, check all others.
  • Ref 4, for instance, has spaced hyphen, should be en-dash, check others.
  • Any reason to not link Eurosport?
  • Or BBC Sport?
  • Ref 7 and 10 have wst.tv while others seem to have WST, be consistent.

That's all I have on a brief canter over the list. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've left some comments. 08:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Snooker_world_rankings_2020/2021/archive1&oldid=1096990710"