Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1987 World Snooker Championship/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2021 [1].

1987 World Snooker Championship edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC) and BennyOnTheLoose[reply]

This article is about the 1987 World Snooker Championship. After losing in the final of both of the previous two tournaments, Steve Davis finally won his fourth title. This event was bookened by Joe Johnson who won the previous year having barely won a match all season, but still making the final. It also marked the final appearance of six-time champion Ray Reardon.

Benny and I have done quite a bit of work on this, and have promoted all of the previous three events (plus some newer ones). Please let us know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Len_Ganley.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF edit

I see this hasn't gotten much attention, so I'll give it a read-through. Might claim for 5 points in the WikiCup. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Featuring 32 participants; the highest ranked 16 players were awarded a place in the first round draw, whilst a pre-tournament qualification event was held for 104 professionals between 26 March to 4 April at the Preston Guild Hall for the remaining places" - Are you sure that should be a semicolon?
  • " Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the youngest player to win a match in the tournament's history," - I believe there should be a comma after 18, as "aged 18" is an appositive
  • "The championship was held from 18 April and 4 May 1987" - Maybe this is an engvar issue, but giving a date span with "and" just does not seem right to me.
  • So maybe I'm missing something really obvious, but I did my math in Excel, and I'm still not getting things to add up right. So the winner gets $80,000, second place gets $48,000; two people get $24,000; four people get $12,000; eight get $6,000; and 16 get $3375; in addition, $8,000 for highest break and $80,000 if you pull off a maximum break. It's adding up to 414,000 for me. (Yes, I know it's pounds, but my keyboard doesn't have a key for the pounds sign).
  • It looks like the total from sources included the amount for third and fourth qualifying round losers, but excluded the £80,000 that would have been awarded for a maximum break. I've added a source that includes the qualifying amounts. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be worth a footnote, IMO, to clarify this. Hog Farm Talk 17:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the link to deciding frame from the second mention to the first.
  • "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player to date to win a match at the event." this caption and the lead both suggest that Hendry's win was the youngest ever in tournament history (back to 1927), while the body text for this suggests that Hendry's was only the youngest since the move to the Crucible Theater as the arena
  • I've amended the lead as I didn't find a reference for him being the youngest winner in tournament history. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link for foul shots? It's not obvious to someone unfamiliar with snooker what a foul shot would be in this sport, as presumeably these aren't like free throws.
  • Downer needs a publisher.
  • It's a self-published source, but I think it's fair to say that he is regarded as an expert. The book is sold via Snooker Scene. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some digging around, and do agree with you that this is probably an acceptable source. It seems to be widely cited.
  • I normally check source reliability in my reviews, but I'm not familiar with these snooker sources at all, so I'll have to leave that for someone else. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for the constructive review Hog Farm. I've tried to address all of the points that you raised - let me know if there is anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, source formatting, and 4; did not check others or was not familiar enough with subject matter. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720 edit

Please consider this a non-expert review.

  • "Johnson, however, reached the final, in a rematch of the previous year's final, he played Steve Davis in the final." Very awkward sentence, with "final" used three times and too many commas.
  • "Stephen Hendry, aged 18 became the" comma after 18
  • Prize fund: as a non-snooker player, I understand who gets the money in most of the categories. However, I don't understand what Highest break and maximum break refers to. Perhaps a note or an explanation under the prize fund section is in order.
    • Sure, we do link to these though in the table. (I.E Highest break and maximum break. Perhaps we should have something on the maximum break that clarifies that it's a bonus if someone did make a maximum, rather than a prize for something that is guaranteed to happen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In other FACs, it's been mentioned that uncommon terms and jargon should not require a reader to click a wikilink. Since people can win money for fulfilling these conditions, I suggest a note be used for these terms so that readers can get the info at the bottom of the page. This is how other articles with specialist terms have fulfilled this suggestion lately. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll withdraw this concern, as other reviewers haven't flagged this as a concern, and I think the wikilinks suffice. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gino Rigitano conceded the 11th frame of his match against Steve Newbury when there were still enough balls on the table for him to win," Why did he concede? Seems like a significant event if it's getting its own sentence.
  • The source says "...Newbury having victory handed to him .... The Canadian conceded the 11th frame when he was 61 points behind with six reds on the table. He quit altogether when the score was 9-4, deciding not to come out for the last frame." I think this was commented on because it's unusual for a professional snooker player to concede a frame and match from these positions, but the source doesn't say that. I'll see if any other sources have more. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find anything else in sources about this, so I suppose the options are either to leave it pretty much as it is, or remove it as not significant given that only one source found mentions it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with leaving it in if the source can't verify additional info. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Bill Werbeniuk and Eddie Charlton both also failed" Remove both
  • "He received £2,000 for this break, the highest during qualifying." Is this separate from the £8000 in the prize fund section?
  • "with the match being going to a deciding frame" delete "being"
  • "then won the next after needing his opponent to make foul shots to win 10–7." Did his opponent succeed in the foul shots? What are foul shots? This sentence confused me.
    • I've reworded this (as per a suggestion to comment on "snookers required"), hopefully this is a bit better Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments will come later. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the references, sometimes news articles show the date in the brackets after the author and other times they list it further into the reference. Please standardise.
  • I think this is a feature of the reference template. Help:Citation Style 1 says "When an author is cited, the date of the cited work is displayed after the author's name ... If no author is cited, the date appears after the title". Let me know if there are any exceptions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crucible Almanac's refs seem like they are missing something. Should a publisher be listed?
  • It's a self-published source sold via the magazine Snooker Scene. I think it's fair to say that the work is well-regarded. It's mentioned here as "a key resource for commentators and journalists alike." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for my first round. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round two, just one comment:

  • "The 11-time pool world champion Jim Rempe,[29] made a break of 104" Either remove the comma or put one after champion

Some bullet points above are also missing responses. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added two comments above, and one below:

  • For the first paragraph in "Format", why is reference [14] used three times in a row? Is it WP:OVERCITE or perhaps we can separate the page numbers and identify on which specific page number each sentence is verified by. Since articles are first-and-foremost for readers, imo excessive footnotes when they are not needed (and are repeating the same footnote after each sentence) should be avoided.
  • I've changed the references here as the 1987-88 Rothmans Yearbook has a clearer statement than the 1991-92 edition that this was the last ranking event of the season, and I've amended another one to Downer's 2019 Crucible Almanac. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tolerating my nit-picking. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like all of my concerns have been resolved. I'll support this nom. Z1720 (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment edit

Well past the three week mark and little sign of a consensus to promote developing. If this hits the four week mark without garnering considerable further interest I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pawnkingthree edit

  • I think this is a well-written and comprehensive article, well up to the standards of Lee's previous snooker FAs. My only concern is with the awkward and long-winded sentence, "After this, Davis required White to make foul shots in order to gain the necessary penalty points from them for Davis to win the frame." Why not just "After this, Davis required snookers?" I realize it's jargon, but that's what wikilinks are for.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree... But I've had prior with links not being suitable for jargon terms at FAC. It's one of those things that is worse because snooker has a few different meanings, so specifically saying foul points does explain what is on, and the link can also explain more. Thanks for the support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TRM edit

  • "had a series of poor results since his 1986 victory" I guess you mean in the run-up to this tournament but it's not 100% clear.
  • Amended in the lead and body, but may need a bit more work. The sources used are really commenting about the season as a whole rather than than match results, so I'm not sure that "poor results" was really the right phrase. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "66–1 outsider" perhaps to avoid having to explain what 66–1 means in the lead, drop that and just mention it in the main part of the article, perhaps with a link to fixed-odds betting?
  • Pending... I think it's worth keeping something in the lead that mentions he was seen as an outsider, but that doesn't feel like the right term without the connection to bookmakers' odds. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about: "and had high odds against winning the tournament." or similar. The article goes into the details, and this would be a summary - but also make it clear it was the bookmakers who were against Johnson. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a 127 made" can't decide if "a" is needed here or not.
  • I've removed it as there was only the one 127 break, but would be happy to reinstate it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox says it was organised by WPBSA but that's not really mentioned explicitly.
  • "at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England, the" you literally said this the last sentence of the previous para.
  • "four-round knockout qualifying competition" isn't there a suitable link for this?
  • "as seeded players" seed was mentioned before this linked variant.
  • "4 April, and produced" -> "4 April which produced"
  • "as best-of-19-frames" not like me, I know, but perhaps you could add "meaning ten frames were required to win the match" only because you then go on to talk about how many frames were required in subsequent rounds.
  • "bookmakers' outsider, priced at 66–1 " I've been asked to link bookmaker and also you could link "priced" to the odds article I noted above.
  • "On 6 April" maybe more contextual to say "Twelve days before the start of the tournament..."?
  • "most serious being" -> "most serious of which was" to avoid ing ing.
  • "104 entrants to qualifying, although four" gah, MOSNUM, comparable values, all numerals or all words...
  • "but Frank Jonik, Eddie McLaughlin, Sakchai Sim Ngam and Omprakesh Agrawal all withdrew" you've said four withdrew already, need to merge these.
  • "11-time pool world champion" was he a specific variant of pool champ?
  • The source used here didn't mention this so I looked around. His BCA Hall of Fame entry mentions that he won 11 world titles but doesn't give a full list - looks like the World One-Pocket Championship, the World 9-Ball Championship, and the World Straight Pool Championship were among the titles, as well as the impressive "All-Around Champion of the World." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If using the surname is not ambiguous, just use that and not repeat the first name, your approach at the moment is inconsistent.
  • Amended. I've kept it so that the first round uses first name and surname, even though some players are mentioned earlier to avoid a mix of full names and surnames being used for players in the same section of the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first round was" maybe "of the main tournament"
  • "Stephen Hendry was the youngest player..." add a "pictured in" because that photo was taken 22 years later...
  • "player Willie Thorne. Hendry led 5–4" -> "player Willie Thorne and led 5–4"
  • Amended - I didn't include the "and" because there's one soon after, so this could probably be improved. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "player to win a match" repetitive use of "win", perhaps "to secure a victory"?
  • "wasn't" avoid contractions.
  • "The 1985 Champion" no need for capital C.
  • "best-of-25 held" +frames.
  • "frame on a re-spotted black.[18] " overlinked.
  • "Hendry wrapped up a" bit colloquial.
  • "O'Kane, ranked 39th in the world rankings," probably should have mentioned that in the first round when he beat the second seed?
    Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "frames in a row and were tied at 8–8. " reads odd, maybe "frames in a row and the match was tied at 8–8."?
  • "frames in-a-row to" not sure that needs hyphenating. At least, be consistent.
  • "failed in an attempt to pot a red" why not "missed a red"?
  • Crop the Foulds image to get rid of the clown...!
    • You not a Murphy fan? I have no image manipulation skills whatsoever. Is there a suitable place to request this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had a go at this. Pinging Nikkimaria who had kindly reviewed images earlier, as I've hopefully provided appropriate attribution but am not entirely sure. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have just linked the original uploader. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in frame 7; allowing" no need for the semi-colon.
  • "frame 7" vs " frame eight"...
  • Link maximum break.
  • You normally link fluke to the cuegloss.
  • (I'm not going to ask you explain the notion of a free ball here, but can you imagine trying to do that...?)
  • Put "pictured in" for Davis image too, once again it's 20 or so years after this event.
  • "The last time that two players had met in consecutive finals at the World Championship " just to be clear, say where these were played as the "at the Crucible" is vital to the previous sentence.
  • Amended to show 1955 and 1956, as these are regarded as world championships. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was the" +also.
  • "Davis' lead" Davis's.... :(
  • "last red ball when" you link red ball here?
  • "but failed on an attempt to pot a red" again, "missed a red"?
  • Even top players sometimes miss the object ball with the cue ball..so there is a difference, although perhaps "missed a red" is still better as a commonly-understood term? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's a pitfall I've falled into a few times. I've reworded that line entirely, as it's not very clear. "Failed to pot" is indeed much better than "Missed a red", which I would indeed suggest gets into foul and a miss teritory.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link yellow ball but not green or pink...
  • "won on the colours" probably needs a bit more.
  • "winners.[17][16][78]" order.
  • "first frameof the" space.
  • "lowest world championship high break" beating which record low?
  • 1977's highest break was 135 by John Spencer. This was the "lowest high break" at the Crucible until 1986, where Steve Davis' 134 was the highest. Should something be added about this? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a go, but I'm not delighted with my wording. Maybe make this a footnote rather than body text? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 71, en-dash.
  • Ref 40, get rid of extraneous title material.
  • Ref 11 links the work, seems to be the only one?
  • Ref 30 is BBC Sport.
  • As is ref 40.
  • Consistent ISBN formats.

That's my thoughts for a first pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Version reviewed: [2]
Formatting
  • You seem to be a bit inconsistent with including websites & publisher or just publishers, is there a reason for this?
  • I've made some changes that I hope have improved consistency, but happy to make further changes as necessary. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wpbsa should be wpbsa.com for ref 10—like the others, right?
  • I think ref 11 has an author and date
  • ref 17 has a missing author
  • ref 19 should have "pp." and spaces after the commas
  • I'm not really sure what your retrieval date inclusion criteria is here
  • I've filled in a missing retrieval date, and the other missing one had gone as part of merging what were refs 74/75. Unless I've missed any, all website sources should now have a retrieval date, but if there are any other issues then please advise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 74 and 75 seem to be the same one
  • Amended. I've used "A brief history of the World Professional Championship" rather than "World Professional Championship" as the title, please advise if this needs changing. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 74/75 seems to have 2008 as the year
  • Snooker.org vs snooker.org
  • I would take "May 2011 update" out of ref 89 and add it as the date parameter
Reliability
  • The sources that seem less than high quality also seem to be citing only statistical information, so no issues there I think
  • Seems fine in general, particularly considering the subject matter.
Verifiability
  • Fine from what I checked. Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for taking on the review and for your helpful comments, Aza24. I've tried to address everything but appreciate that more may be required, in which case I'll make further changes. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
  • Thanks for you attentiveness. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review edit

Placeholder. Expect the review sometime between 16–18 June. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any news ImaginesTigers?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lee. I'm sorry about the delay. Life has been a little bit busy recently. It should be done today (Tuesday 22), but there's a chance it'll be tomorrow. I'm remaining hopeful, but it was my aunt's funeral today, and there is a chance I'll be very worse for wear tomorrow. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 03:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Lee. Sorry for the delay in what has otherwise been a very short FA review. No keeping you waiting; I support the article's promotion. I've carried out a copy-edit, which you can feel free to disagree with. There are no issues with the prose, and these are really just rearrangements to wording more than anything else. You and Benny have done a good job on this one. I'm not interested in snooker, but it genuinely was a good read. (Do we have an article on drug use in snooker? Sounds kinda funny.) Good job both of you! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not drug use, no. We do have a list of snooker players investigated for match-fixing. It would be an interesting read, I'm sure. Maybe something for the backburner. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Amakuru edit

Overview
  • "the sport was popular in the British Isles" - when was this?
  • "The championship featured 32 professional players competing in one-on-one snooker matches in a single elimination format..." - from the past tense, I assume this (and the subsequent point about WBPSA promotions) refers to the 1987 event in particular? Worth making that clear.
  • And, given the above, I'd put the history of the championship (Joe Davis and the 1977 move to the crucible) before specifics about 1987.
  • "the 11th consecutive time that the tournament was held at the venue" - "consecutive" feels slightly redundant here, as the previous paragraph already implies that the event has been there every year since 1977.
  • "The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players" - this feels like it belongs before the sentence about the qualifying competition, especially as we've already mentioned the 16 seeds.
  • "ten frames were required to win the match"- per MOS:NUMNOTES, "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures" so probably use "10" here to match all the other frame numbers in this paragraph.
Tournament summary
  • "The defending champion Joe Johnson failed to reach as far as the quarter-finals of a major tournament in the 1986–87 snooker season" - I assume this sentence doesn't include the 1987 championship itself. Probably make that clear.
  • "This was described as a "disappointing" or "poor" season for him" - please say who made those comments, per WP:WEASEL.
  • "Sydney Friskin of The Times reported that Johnson prepared for the Championship by reportedly practicing diligently" - I assume the "reportedly" shouldn't be there? Also, "practising" should be spelled with an S in British English. Unless this article is written in US English? (I don't think it says).
Qualifying
  • "The qualifying rounds were played at the Preston Guild Hall from 26 March to 4 April 1987" - the location and dates were already mentioned in the section above.
Qualifying (continued)
  • "Hendry led 8–1 at the end of their first session" - you haven't said who he was playing yet, so "their" sounds wrong.
  • "Hendry won the match at 10–4" - "at" sounds a bit unusual here
First round
  • "Steve Davis was 7–1 ahead of Warren King at the end of their first session. King then won six of the next seven frames..." - I might link these two into one sentence with a "but"
  • "in frame 17; where he successfully" - probably should be a comma, not a semicolon?
  • "Hendry then took the 17th frame" - repetition of "then" shortly after the previous sentence. Consider just removing it.
  • "Hendry became the youngest-ever player to win a match at the Crucible" - presumably a world championship match? (Maybe they don't play any other snooker at the Crucible, but might be nice to clarify)
  • "The win made MacLeod the first Scottish player to secure a victory at the Crucible Theatre" - we've already heard that Hendry won his first-round match too. Is this record held by MacLeod just because his match finished earlier than Hendry's?
Semi-finals
  • "Davis won the match 16–11" - did anything noteworthy happen in the final session?
  • I've added a little detail. Snooker Scene has a bit on how White didn't question being called for a foul in the second frame when potting a red, but as it seems it really was a foul, and he was already 26 points behind by then, I'm not sure that's worth including. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Final
  • General point - decide whether "world championship" is capitalised or not. I'd suggest maybe it shouldn't be, given that the proper noun is actually "World Snooker Championship" and not "World Championship". But needs to be consistent, either way.
  • "Davis compiled a 127 break, the highest of the tournament" - clarify whether this is the highest so far, or if it ended up as the maximum altogether. Also, was this the only century in the final? You don't mention any others that I can see.
Amended, added a mention of Johnson's 101. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson responded winning three frames in a row with Davis doing the same" - maybe "followed by" instead of "with"?
  • "at the start of the second session which finished" - put a comma after "session"
  • "which finished with him leading 9–7" - I would probably put the final score at the end of the session summary, after "and the last of the day by Johnson".
  • "Johnson led 50–0 in the next frame, and with both players making a number of errors during the frame, Davis left him an easy brown that allowed Johnson in to win his fourth consecutive frame to move to within one frame at 13–14" - four occurrences of "frame" in the sentence, maybe reword a bit.
  • The last paragraph isn't related to the final, and should probably in in an "aftermath" or somesuch section.
  • That's about it, I think. Will have another look-over when the above is responded to.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good stuff, and thanks for the prompt turnaround on this. Good work, Lee and Benny.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 19 June 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/1987_World_Snooker_Championship/archive1&oldid=1030354289"