Talk:1947 World Snooker Championship

Latest comment: 1 year ago by RoySmith in topic Did you know nomination

GA Review edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This review is transcluded from Talk:1947 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 19:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links edit

Prose edit

Lede edit

General edit

  • The information on the format of the event, should probably be it's own section Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • No prize money info? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • No - in some earlier years there is a mention in sources about the entry fees being distributed as prize money, but not for 1947. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • I wonder if in the schedule we should be listing the schedule as if it were before the tournament, so "semi-1", etc. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • I'm not sure how far this was known in advance; certainly the dates of the final changed (e.g. in The Billiard Player for March 1947 it was expected that the final would be in "April of May"). I've renamed the section. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • There isn't much info at the start on how the tournament works, it's a bit difficult to follow. Nothing says how people were seeded to the main comp. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
    • There is no info on why some players were placed into the main competition in the sources I've seen, and I doubt that there are any sources that cover this. I could add something like "It isn't known..." but that would be an unsourced statement. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
  • the Fred/Clark match doesn't mention the final score in prose. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Review meta comments edit

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination edit

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Improved to Good Article status by BennyOnTheLoose (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 21:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC).Reply

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  
  • Other problems:  
QPQ: Done.
Overall:   I assume good faith on the references. SL93 (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply