Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/1982 World Snooker Championship/archive2

Comments from Elias (cont.)

@Lee Vilenski: Like I have said on the FAC page, I am moving my subsequent comments here to avoid clogging up the FAC page and cause the nominations list to slow down. As I read the article, I found myself making more comments than I initially thought. There are quite a lot of 'em at the moment---and this is just for one subsection---so please take your time with them! And I apologize that my review got lengthy, haha. Feel free to disagree with any of my nitpicks as well; I might mark them as resolved if I've been given a sufficient defense.

For the sake of transparency, I want to say that I made a couple of copyedits to the article, to take some of the weight off your back. Nothing too egregious; I only added a bunch of commas, removed extraneous whitespace, and rewrote some sentences to remove repetition. Feel free to check all the edits and revert any changes I made as you see fit.

First round

Right now, my standout concern about this article's prose has to do with redundant wording. Not to worry, though; the prose issues aren't so egregious as to warrant a major overhaul of the article off-FAC. I believe we can have these comments resolved within a week. Once you're done addressing 'em, please ping me in the FAC page, or here at talk.

• Defending champion Steve Davis... Davis, however, lost 1–10 to Tony Knowles ... --> repetitive. Also, this is optional, but can we clarify that the 1–10 pertains to the scoring for the entire match?
  • Looks like benny got this, but I'm not sure what 1-10 would else be referring too. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• ... who won the first frame and followed it with the second after Davis twice failed to pot the final black ball and then won the next two by more than 60 points to lead 4–0 at the mid-session interval. --> Extremely hard to follow, what with the length of the sentence.
  • Does "followed it with the second..." pertain to the second frame? If so, you might want to merge to "won the first and second frames" for brevity.
  • The detail where (presumably) Knowles won the next two frames can have its own sentence. Ditto with the information about Davis failing to pot the final black ball for (what I assume are) the two frames, but I'm not sure if this detail is necessary. Then again, I am completely unfamiliar with snooker, so this is your call.
    • I would suggest the following rewrite to address my comments: However, he lost the match 1–10 to Tony Knowles, who won the first and second frames after Davis failed to pot the final black ball twice. Knowles won the next two frames by more than 60 points, giving him a 4–0 lead during the mid-session interval.
  • Benny has changed this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• which Knowles went on to win --> Verbose wording; I would simplify this to "which Knowles won". I will move this phrase beside In the first frame of the second session as well because I believe it fits there better.
  • Unless this sentence intends to say that because the foul shot took place, Knowles had to win this frame. In which case, maybe we can come up with clearer diction for that ...
• Forgive me for being dense; what's the reason for including Knowles' five-hour sleep in the first paragraph?
  • A player ina strong position to defeat the defending champion might be expected to rest rather than party before the final session, but heppy to remove this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
• Graham Miles, who was level at 5–5 with Dave Martin, won the next five frames to complete a 10–5 victory. --> Slightly nitpicky, but I believe "who had a 5–5 tie with" is easier to understand for laypeople like me ^^; Also, how exactly does one complete a victory---wouldn't a more apt term be "acquire" or "attain"?
  • Amended to "tied" and "achieve". A tie suggests the final outcome to me. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Jim Donnelly was the first Scottish player to play at the Crucible. Ray Reardon built a 6–3 lead over Donnelly in the first session but lost the next two frames. --> The first sentence here caught me off-guard, primarily because the flow of the section's sentences up to this point had been something along the lines of "player X led player Y a certain way; player X won the match over player Y" or similar.
  • Suggest to merge the "first Scottish player" information into the subsequent sentence. Ray Reardon played against Jim Donnelly, the first Scottish player to enter the Crucible, and built a 6–3 lead over him. Reardon lost the subsequent two frames but achieved victory in the next four, allowing him to win 10–5.
  • Amended with slight tweaks to your proposed wording. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Terry Griffiths, who had become the bookmakers' favourite to win following the elimination of Steve Davis, led 4–2 but finished his first session behind 4–5 to Willie Thorne, who had never won a match in his six earlier Crucible appearances ...

Alex Higgins, who had said he was having the "worst season of his professional career", became the bookmakers' favourite to win after Steve Davis and Griffiths had been eliminated. Higgins won his opening-round match against Jim Meadowcroft 10–5.

• For the second sentence, I think it would be fine to just say "favourite" instead of "favourite to win"? At this point, readers would already know what the word "favourite" would mean. Plus, we already knew who the previous favourites were, so there is no need to state Davis and Griffiths' names in the second sentence.
• Suggest rewriting to Alex Higgins, who had said he was having the "worst season of his professional career", became the next bookmakers' favourite. He won his opening-round match against Jim Meadowcroft with a 10–5 lead.
• By the way, in the above two sentences, I see a lot of phrases here beginning with "who had..." With that in mind, I would change who had become the bookmakers' favourite to win following the elimination of Steve Davis to "Terry Griffiths, the next bookmakers' favourite after Steve Davis' elimination..."
  • Amended, with tweaks to proposed wording. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• David Taylor led Patsy Fagan 6–3 overnight then extended his lead to 7–3 before Fagan levelled at 7–7. Taylor asked Fagan, who was 7–8 behind, to play again after making a foul shot while failing to escape from a snooker. He failed to pot the green ball and hit the cue ball again as it was still moving, disturbing other balls from their position. The referee could have interpreted this as Fagan conceding the frame but instead replaced the balls. Fagan went on to win the frame. Have a couple of things to say about these three sentences, so please bear with me.
  • I would specify that it was Fagan who failed to pot the green ball, since with the way the current paragraph is structured, the "he" is ambiguous and could refer to either him or Taylor. Similarly---and this is just so we're clear---was it Taylor who made the foul shot?
  • Now here's another problem. If we were to go through with the above suggestion, then Fagan's name would appear in three sentences in a row. Normally I would be fine if it appeared twice in a row, but thrice is egregious. I'm afraid that we might have to rewrite the scoring details here, i.e. "Fagan levelled at 7–7" or "asked Fagan, who was 7–8 behind", in the interest of eliminating repetition with regards to his name.
    • Hence, might I suggest the following rewrite: David Taylor led Patsy Fagan 6–3 overnight then extended his lead to 7–3, before the two reached a 7–7 tie. Taylor won another frame and regained his lead. The pair agreed to play again (replay a frame?) after (Taylor/Fagan) made a foul shot when he failed to escape from a snooker. Fagan failed to pot the green ball and hit the cue ball again as it was still moving, which disturbed the other balls from their position. The referee could have interpreted the event as a concession, but Fagan replaced the balls and won the frame.
      • By the way, may I have some context about the referee's interpretation?
        • @Troubled.elias: Fagan had been asked to play again by Taylor after missing the green once. (There have been some changes to the rules, but I don't think the substance of the current rule 10(h)ii has changed: "The player who committed the foul ... has to play the next stroke if requested by the next player.") It was on the second attempt that Fagan disturbed the balls with his cue. Fagan then again replayed (after the referee had replaced the balls). From The Times source: "[Fagan's] 10–9 victory left his stunned opponent, David Taylor, wishing he had played by the rule book and claimed a controversial frame that was eventually won by Fagan." I hope that helps. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Jimmy White, who started his match against Cliff Thorburn with a break of 102 in the first frame and led 7–2 in the first session, won the match 10–4. --> "Jimmy White, who started his match against Cliff Thorburn with a break of 102 in the first frame, led 7–2 in the first session and won the match 10–4."
  • Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Second round

Ok

Quarter-finals

Everything here seems alright; ditto for the semi-finals section. Picture caption's no problem

Finals

This was written quite amazingly, wow. Absolutely no issues for this section

• Main draw, Qualifying, and Century breaks - no issues found here; tables and diagrams look fine