Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 World Snooker Championship final/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2021 [1].

1985 World Snooker Championship final edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most famous snooker match of all time. Picture it, it's 1985, Steve Davis has won three world championships and has pretty much won everything else. He's in the final of the 1985 World Snooker Championship, and plays Northern Ireland's Dennis Taylor. Should be a good match? Davis wins the first of four sessions without losing a single frame, and then leads 8-0. It's the first to 18. He misses a green ball, and Taylor goes on a rampage, gets the score back to 13-11 after the third session, but then trails 17-15. Game over? No. Taylor wins the next two and it's a deciding frame. There are 46 legal pots on the table, but it comes down to the very last one. It's all on the final black ball. Both men have a go, and Davis is left with an easy-ish pot. The whole country groans. He misses, and Taylor pots to win his only world championship. 18.5 million people look at their watches, it's 1a.m and you've got work in the morning.

The main article, the 1985 World Snooker Championship passed through to FA last year. This is the only individual snooker match that we have an article on, although I'd say there's probably three or four more that are notable. This one is in a league of it's own, due to holding the record audience past midnight in the UK, and of any show on BBC Two. The match is often credited with the snooker boom of the 1980s and early 1990s. I hope you enjoy the read, and let me know if there is anything I've missed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth edit

Support Comments from BennyOnTheLoose edit

I may claim points for this review in the WikiCup, if I consider it a substantial enough review.

  • Not all infobox info is cited, e.g. ages.
  • There are a few duplicate links. (Terry Griffiths, pink ball, black ball, David Vine)
  • Background: "The World Snooker Championship is a professional tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker." How about a reword to show it is the official world championship of professional snooker? (The IBSF World Snooker Championship is also official.)
  • Background: "final was the culmination of the final" - repetition of "final"
  • "equivalent to £142,666 in 2016" Why select 2016, and what is the source for £142,666?
  • "The match was broadcast on the BBC for the eighth year in a row" - I don't think match is the right word here.
  • The final frame: "the best in the world this year." - not sure if the italicisation is justified.
  • Legacy: "reoccoring" - either recurring or reoccurring. I'm not sure which.
More to follow. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "Taylor trailed until he tied the match at 17–17." - they were tied earlier too (at 11-11 and 15-15, I think). Maybe reword, e.g. to say that Taylor was never ahead until winning the final frame?
  • Lead: "was contested over several shots on the final ball" - reads as if it was only over several shots on the final ball to me.
  • Lead: "after midnight on 28 April" - I think midnight is usually considered part of the new day, so suggest either reword or omit "on 28 April".
  • Lead: "The match was later released in full" - as the release was in 2006 and the previous sentence refers to a 2010 programme, maybe omit "later"? Reviews of the video say that it is about the final frame, not that it is the full final, so is there a source that states otherwise?
    • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reviews of the video say that it is about the final frame, not that it is the full final. Is there a source that states otherwise? Lead still says "The match was released in full". BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)][reply]
  • Lead: "reoccouring" - either recurring or reoccurring. I'm not sure which.
  • "world number one" - currently linked at second instance.
  • "world number one" and "defending champion" repeated in consecutive sections. Maybe amend the first to mention that he was the top seed as defending champion?
  • Road to the final: "Davis played David Taylor in the second round, but held a three frame lead..." - "but" doesn't seem to fit.
  • Road to the final: "a three frame lead throughout much of the match" - "throughout much of the match" doesn't seem to fit. (Unless at least a three frame lead ?)
    • Changed. You can't say throughout the match, as obviously you can't start 3 frames up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Road to the final: four of five consecutive sentences start with "Davis..."; two consecutive sentences start with "Taylor played.." and four, including these, with "Taylor..." Maybe reword.
  • Match report: text has "Taylor started the 1985 final with a break of over 50" but match statistics section shows a break of exactly 50 in the first frame.
  • Match report: "after Davis attempted, and missed, a fine cut on the green ball" - I'm not seeing the support for this in the espn source cited.
  • Match report:" Appearing tired and unfocused" - I'm not seeing the support for this in the sources cited.
  • Match report: "Davis appeared the more nervous of the two players and was beginning to make unforced errors" - I'm not seeing the support for this in the espn source cited.
Possibly more to follow. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this for me BennyOnTheLoose, I've made necessary adjustments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose - I've covered the above, was there anything more? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through a few sources to see if there are any aspects that might be missing from the article. Sources consulted:

  • Ian Morrison, Snooker: records, facts & champions
  • David Hendon, Snooker Scene's 50 Classic Matches
  • Luke Williams & Paul Gadsby, Masters of the Baize
  • Clive Everton, Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards
  • Hector Nunns, The Crucible's Greatest Matches
  • Snooker Scene, June 1985

I'd say that the following probably merit inclusion:

  • Taylor's mother dying in September 1984 and his win at the 1984 Grand Prix. (Hendon, Nunns, Everton, Williams & Gadsby)
    • Added. Interestingly, we mentioned this on the main article. I have added. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davis' loss to Higgins in the 1983 UK Championship final after leading 7-0 (Hendon, Everton, Williams & Gadsby) (From Snooker Scene, June 1985: "Scar tissue forms on boxer's eyebrows but in snooker player's minds. Some of the latter re-opened copiously in this classic final.")

Also for consideration:

  • Davis had never lost in a ranking tournament final (Morrison)
  • Davis had won 8/9 of their previous matches (Williams & Gadsby)
  • Taylor had started using a new cue that season (Williams & Gadsby)
  • Taylor's glasses (Hendon, Williams & Gadsby) (started using them in 1983?)
    • As much as Taylor himself is defined by the glasses, and the final by proxy, I'm not really sure what we can really say, other than he wore unusually sized glasses. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davis missing a green in the ninth frame as the turning point (Nunns) (the miss on the green is already in the article)
    • I'd be against saying "turning point", without a specific person saying this. Not really a wikivoice thing Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The finger-wagging was at his friend Trevor East (Nunns)
  • Taylor signed with Hearn after the final (Hendon, Williams & Gadsby)
  • Taylor lost in the first round in 1986 (Williams & Gadsby)

Looking at some of the contemporary reporting, (mindful of TRM's comment that "7 words per frame doesn't feel like comprehensive coverage for a featured article"), there isn't all that much about the match before the final frame other than descriptions of breaks and Taylor's hue. The info about the breaks is already in the final table, so I'm not sure there is all that much missing. Any reviewers with access to newspaper archives with a different opinion? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that was my impression too. Thanks for the exhaustive cite list! BennyOnTheLoose. 16:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review.

  • "and reason for the surge in the sport's popularity". 'the'?
That's me being over succinct. I think you need 'the' before "reason".
Oh, haha I was very confused by this. Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a professional tournament and the official world championship of the game of professional snooker". Is the second "professional" necessary?
    • See Benny's comments. Potential to remove the first professional. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer your original wording. Do Benny and I need to step into the car park to have a full and frank review of the nuances of this?
        • There's only one way to find out, fight! I'm happy with whatever version you guys work out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm actually not too hung up on this. The IBSF World Snooker Championship is generally regarded as the world championship for amateurs, but some professionals have been allowed to compete. Also, some amateurs are now allowed into the World Snooker Championship (WSC) by invitation (or by winning specified qualifying tournaments). I think in 1985 it was only members of the WPBSA that could enter the WSC, and really the distinction was between members and non-members rather than amateur and professional - top amateurs earnt more than most professionals. I've looked in the past for a source that says the WSC is the official world championship of snooker and not found one. (Whose authority would it be on, anyway? The World Confederation of Billiards Sports recognised both last time I looked.) I'm not sure what we do in other sports; if calling this the official world championship is within policy then I have no issues. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned about the double use of "professional", but that's not a huge deal. Fairly obviously, it can't be described as "official" unless that is solidly supported. At the moment it seems to be sourced to a 1927 newspaper article. Lee, anywhere else supporting "official"? Or less than 94 years old? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose not. It's sort of a thing people just know to be true. I've changed to The World Snooker Championship is a professional snooker tournament first held in 1927 and held annually since 1969. which I've sourced. Hows that? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a pre-tournament qualification bracket". Is there a more widely-understood word than "bracket"?
    • Sometimes we use "qualification stage", but there was more than one. I don't want to reuse "tournament" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"bracket" is horrible. Almost anything would be better IMO. Not a show stopper, but coming to this cold it was about the one thing which really jarred.
        • I've changed to "competition", which isn't exactly perfect, but I agree better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Matches at the event were played as over a series of frames". Has the grammar slipped, or is it supposed to read like that? ("as over")
  • "equivalent to £142,666 in 2016". Why 2016?
    • It's the {{inflation}} template - 2016 is the newest. Happy to remove, but '85 did have significantly different money. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - it says 2019. Personally I always use the "current year" formulation.
  • "but held a three frame lead throughout much of the match at 6–3" I genuinely don't see what you are trying to say here.
Looks good. It occurs to me that "three frame" should be hyphenated.
  • "Road to the final", the Taylor parragraph: five sentences - one starts "Dennis Taylor", the next four with "Taylor". I know it's tricky, but is a bit of variety possible?
  • "It was Taylor's second final, having previously lost to Terry Griffiths 16–24." Could we give the year?
  • "the middle of the baulk cushion". Maybe 'the middle of the baulk (bottom) cushion' or 'the middle of the baulk - bottom - cushion'?
    • I try very hard NOT to use top or bottom in describing cushions, as on the broadcast it has the baulk at the top of the screen, despite being a bottom cushion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I hadn't noticed that.
        • It's a bugbear of me, probably because I watch too much snooker. It's done on commentary all the time "onto the bottom cushion at the top of your screen!"
  • Is the bottom left pocket really known as the "green corner pocket"? If so, it seems unnecessarily technical.
    • Yeah, green pocket is the one nearest the green! I can change if suitable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's horribly technical. I know a little about the sport and I was looking at my hands and trying to visualise where I was standing. But if "top" and "bottom" are confusing I am stumped for better ideas.
Left and right is all about perspective too, which is why it's usually done by colour. I could just say "corner pocket", as which pocket it was doesn't really matter. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are OK with that. IMO it would improve the article.
  • Davis, however, claimed that he was "the best in the world this year." - I started a different query and half way through realised that Davis was referring to Taylor. I think that the context of the quote in the article means that this is not clear.
    • I think I miswrote, it was Taylor who was speaking about himself. I'll change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Davis mentions how close he was to being able to pot a pink which he snookered himself on that changed the course of the match". Grammatically this is correct, but it takes a couple of read throughs to work out what is meant.

Really good. It brought back some of the tension nicely. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review Gog the Mild, I've replied to the above, let me know if it's suitable now. I sadly can't relate, the events here took place several years before I was born. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of relatively minor comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for expanding. I've made some replies, it does read a bit better now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work. An optional comment on the green pocket issue above, I shall engage with Benny when they get back to us. But nothing to hold up my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 16:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that there are no PD images closer to 1985? Eg, the image of Davies 25 years after the event is not ideal. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is File:Steve Davis Warsaw 16.06.2007.jpg from 2007, but I thought it negligible. Nothing PD that I've found from even the same century sadly. If they exist on flickr or otherwise that's news to me... But please let me know if they do exist! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree with you more. With the current climate, not going to get any new current images either! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius edit

I will leave a few comments shortly. Right now I'll just leave my initial lead comments:

  • I found it somewhat strange that there are thumbnail images in the table of the lead section. It's not a big deal, but quite strange.
  • Davis was appearing in his fourth final, and it was Taylor's second. - I wonder if this may be rephrased because the sentence structure of these two clauses is inconsistent. E.g. "The event was Davis's fourth final and Taylor's second"
  • The climax in the early hours of Monday 29 April was viewed by 18.5 million people in the United Kingdom, which remains a record viewing figure for BBC2 - also as of 2020?
  • The match is often considered the most famous snooker match of all time, and the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s despite there not being a single century break.
    • Is the phrase "often considered" applicable to both clauses of this sentence? I.e. "The match is often considered [...] the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s".
    • Or does the phrase "often considered" refer merely to "the most famous snooker match of all time"? I.e. "The match is [...] the reason for the surge in the sport's popularity in the 1980s and 1990s". I ask this because I don't see anything about an 80s-90s surge in the text.
  • For those who are unfamiliar with snooker, is the lack of a century break uncommon?
  • It is the only "Crucible" final (i.e. World Snooker Championship final since 1977) not to feature a century break. (A source for this, up to and including 2019, is Chris Downer's Crucible Almanac, 2019 edition, p.187.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. In that case, it may be worth clarifying that this is rare. Epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • The World Snooker Championship is a professional snooker tournament first held in 1927 and held annually since 1969. - "held" is repeated in close succession
  • The tournament featured a 32 participant - given that this would be an adjectival phrase, it should probably be "32-participant"
  • Steve Davis, ranked as the world number one - a comma is needed after "world number one"
  • He then played David Taylor in the second round holding at least three-frame lead throughout much of the match and eventually won 13–4, after winning seven frames out of eight - this may be a run-on sentence because of the lack of commas, and the comma that is there may not be necessary. I would rewrite this as, "He then played David Taylor in the second round, holding at least three-frame lead throughout much of the match, and eventually won 13–4 after winning seven frames out of eight".

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Match report:

  • This was Davis's fourth world championship final, having won the event in 1981, 1983 and 1984. - This is a dangling modifier, as "having won the event" modifies "[the] final" when it should modify "Davis". More grammatically correct is something like "Davis was competing in his fourth world championship final, having won the event in 1981, 1983 and 1984." However, I think it can be refined into a better wording.
  • It was Taylor's second final, having lost to Terry Griffiths 16–24 in 1979 - Also a dangling modifier here.
  • The black missed but rebounded up and down the table - If I'm understanding correctly, it reverberated between either side of the table? I think there may be a better word for this, but at the moment, it has not occurred to me.
    • I've removed and stated that it finished safe, which is the important bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taylor cited defeating Thorburn, who he described - I think it would be "whom he described", as Thorburn is the object of the description. In other words, Taylor had described him (Thorburn). Same as and Davis, who he described, as Davis is also the object of the description.

Legacy:

  • He would, however, win the following three in a row between 1987 and 1989, - I wonder if it would be suitable to say something similar to "He would, however, win the subsequent three" or "He would, however, win all the finals between 1987 and 1989". In the context, it may be repetitive. The "following year's final", mentioned in the previous sentence, is assumed to be 1986. Furthermore, the time span of 1987–1989 is consecutive, so "in a row" is almost definitely repetitive.

@Lee Vilenski: That's all the prose comments I had. Epicgenius (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've covered all these Epicgenius Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I don't think there is anything else of concern. I should've noted earlier that I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review, so I'll make that declaration now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and spot checks by ImaginesTigers edit

Instead of a prose review, I'll go through the article and do some copy-editing. After that's done, I'll spot-check about ten citations at random; any more than five major issues, and I'll do another five. I'm not anticipating any problems, given your prestigious pedigree! Might be tomorrow, but it might be Monday. Bear with. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've got access to most of the offline sources if there are any you would like me to have a look at. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. There's a lot I don't understand in this article... thankfully, there are wiki-links! There's some kind of template being used for some of them, though, which made it a nuisance to check what they meant in Visual Editor. Anyway, here's my spot checks:

2. Fine 3. Fine 7. Fine 8. Fine 19. Fine 36. Fine

Thanks to me now having a Wiki Library card, I have access to newspapers.com, but thanks for the offer, Benny.

13. Pass 14. Pass


Everything is laid out clearly; reference formatting is all fine, as I can see it. Passes the spot check easily. I've carried out some minor copy-editing (feel free to revert any you disagree with). I'm sorry this review is so brief but it didn't take very long at all. Good job, Lee. Support. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "best-of-35 frame match" hyphen should extend to -frame as it's that whole clause which is describing the match.
  • "was culminated" seems odd phrasing to me. I would either go for just "culminated" or "was concluded", but not "was culminated..."
  • "The final took ... with the final..." repetitive.
  • "finishing after midnight. The climax in the early hours " seems like you're saying the same thing twice?
  • " best-of-35-frames" needs consistency with hyphenation and plurals.
  • Do we need thumbnails inside that frame? Why not just put the caption text underneath?
  • Any reason that R in World Ranking is capitalised in that table?
  • Unclear to me but is that hand-crafted lead table in accordance with MOS:DTT?
    • I've done a full makeover on the table, so hopefully it's better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at least three-frame lead " a three-frame lead?
  • "after leading 8–1 after " repetitive.
  • "an over nine hour second session" some hyphenation needed here!
  • "but won 16 of the next 19 frames" no need to repeat frames here.
  • Is the hand-crafted table in "Road to the final" compliant with MOS:DTT?
    • Tbh, I'd totally forgotten about both tables. I have reworked both of these to meet the MOS. The second one could do with some sort of line to seperate it down the middle, but otherwise looks better now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "strong favourite" according to whom?
  • "Davis' " as I'm sure you know, MOS insists that use "Davis's" or seek to reword if it's awkward. Of course that's junk advice from MOS but dem's da rulez.
    • I did not know that. I don't know much about how this is supposed to work, hopefully Davis's does make sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " won the event on three occasions" won the event in..."
  • "having previously" no need for "previously"
  • "followed by a 50+ break" just say what it was.
  • General: I know this is mainly about the "black ball" frame, you cover the preceding 34 frames in about 230 words, 7 words per frame doesn't feel like comprehensive coverage for a featured article.
    • I'm sorry, but pretty much every source I have talks about the main event so-to-speak. Contemporary sourcing pretty much mentions the scores, that Davis was 7-0 ahead after the first session, Taylor won well in the second session. BennyOnTheLoose might have some more info from contemporary sources, but I do remember it being pretty dry Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "62–44 in points," not sure "in points" is required here.
  • "along much of the length of the table" across the middle pocket?
    • I'm not sure I understand, the pot was from one end of the table to the other. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "potted" is used three times in two sentences, might be hard to find alt-words, but the repetition is jarring.
  • "With just the final ball to play" you literally just said "with only the black ball, worth seven points, remaining".
  • "ball to play, Taylor attempted to double the ball " plus this is repetitive use of "ball".
  • Do we have a gloss link for pocket?
  • Not seeing in the prose the date the final started.
  • "whilst" is archaic, I think we use "while".
  • "defeating Cliff Thorburn," no need for Cliff.
  • "The scores for the match is shown ..." are shown?
  • "brackets" parentheses.
  • "whilst" while.
  • The {{dagger}} has an alt-text parameter.
  • Not sure you need three things for winning a frame, i.e. a higher score, a bold text and a dagger. Besides, you use bold in situations where it isn't denoting a winning frame, like who is winning at the end of a session, highest break etc.
  • Is that hand-crafted finals score table MOS:DTT compliant?
  • From a purely visually aesthetic perspective, the different widths columns from frame to frame is quite ugly.
  • " often considered the most famous " by whom?
  • "final moments of the final" repetitive reuse of "final".
  • I'm sure Barry Hearn could be linked.
  • "called Steve Davis" any reason to reiterate his first name here?
  • "a press conference after the event.[9][16] The press conference " repetitive.
  • reoccurring -> recurring.
  • The "most viewed" records seem to be split across the first two paras of legacy, why not keep them together?
  • "where Davis missed the a cut into the corner pocket, Davis stated" -> "where Davis missed the a cut into the corner pocket, he stated"
  • Did Taylor have anything to say on that retrospective show?
    • He did - mostly that was going to have a go at any shot that came up, but I'd have to get my video out to see what he actually said. I don't remember it being particularly quotable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30: MOS:DASH.
  • Ref 25 vs Ref 35, Eurosport formatting.
    • They aren't the same on purpose. Eurosport UK is not the same as Eurosport. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 publisher BBC Sport.
  • Ref 4 vs ref 8, Everton, Clive or Clive Everton? And he can be linked.
  • What's the strategy on linking publishers/websites/works? Can't work it out.
  • Ref 3 vs ref 12 and ref 40, Snooker Scene formatting.
  • Ref 21 publisher BBC Sport.
  • Ref 22, if via the Times digital archive, where's the URL and where's the sub-only padlock?
  • Ref 23, if that's via ProQuest, where's the URL?
  • Ref 24 publisher BBC Sport.
  • Ref 26, 37: suddenly BBC Sport, but in italics? And ref 46 is BBC Sport...
  • Ref 27 doesn't link ESPN but ref 28 does?
  • Ref 29 should be pp. and using a dash per MOS.
  • Ext link, what is WST?

That's my first quick pass, hope it's helpful, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the establishment don't approve of this kind of "nitpick" review which apparently is designed to "impress" people, so I'll leave this with my support. Good luck Lee, this place has turned to shit. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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_article_candidates/1985_World_Snooker_Championship_final/archive1&oldid=1006350354"