Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Snooker world rankings 1979/1980/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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) 00:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1979/1980

1980 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured list in the hope that it will join its three predecessors with the status. The list itself is fairly straightforward (although its lower reaches are shrouded in mystery), and I've tried to summarise the near-farcial changes to rankings and seedings proposed and reverted by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association. Thanks for all improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "the WPBSA voted to seed only two players into the last 16" - seeding them "into" the last 16 makes it sound like they got a bye to that round, is that the case? If so, that isn't my understanding of what seeding usually means......
  • "and the players ranked nine to 16 would each be seeded the first round" - should that be "and the players ranked nine to 16 would each be seeded in the first round".....?
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've reworded, to hopefully make it clear that the players were exempted to certain rounds; let me know if it needs further work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the

wikicup
once this review is over.

Lede
  • Before this, the defending champion was seeded first, and the previous year's runner-up second, for each tournament.[1][2][3 - maybe flip to "before this, for each tournament the defe..." As it reads a bit easier to me. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Players' performances in the previous three World Snooker Championships (1977, 1978 and 1979) - we've gone from speaking about 1977, we should prefix this para that we are talking about 79/80. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially, but such an article would be close to a permastub. Seems to have been a fairly short-lived thing, which wasn't heard of after leading players got their way. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't really thought about it before, but to me a bye seems to be about a specific round, when there aren't enough players to fill all the slots. The Guardian source used has "the traditional eight exemptions ... revised the number of exemption to 16, number 1-8 to have byes and numbers 9-16 to meet eight qualifiers in the first round". I looked for other examples of "exemption", and found a few, e.g. "[Hallet was] exempted until the seventh qualifying round of the world championship" (The Guardian, 21 Jan 1997, p.22); "This year the top 16 'world ranked players, from an entry of 103, are exempted until the Sheffield stage" (The Daily Telegraph, 17 January 1985, p.33); "he succumbed to Rosa, whose world ranking of 119 exempted him to the ninth round" (The Independent, January 11, 1998). So I think I prefer to keep the current text, but could easily be persuaded otherwise. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • The table seems wierdly sorted - what makes certainly players higher than others for when they are the same points? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a mystery. It would seem logical to sort players on the same number of points based on their most recent performances, but this doesn't look to be the case for the ordering of Spencer and Thorburn, for example. No further details in sources as far as I'm aware. (In later years, of course, it got much more complicated, with merit points, half-points, A points, and frames won taken into account.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we have a player who didn't play in any of the three events (in 24 and 26)? Also, why are they above players who did take part? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a mystery. Snooker Scene only listed players with points, so I have no idea where Turner would have got the details for lower places from. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • this has been the case for earlier season articles, following a comment that "I've never seen an article where a "preceded by/succeeded by" template was placed centrally at the top, it looks odd to me. I would put it at the bottom as is by far the norm." at the 1976/1977 discussion - or is the issue that I've placed it oddly in a different way? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski. Thanks. I've responded above. Let me know what you think. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

Hello, this is my first FL review and I am not particularly familiar with snooker, but this nom has languished for so long I'm hoping my comments will still be of use. Fortunately there's not much to gripe about!

  • Prose in the lead reads fine and is properly sourced. It's understandable for someone with no snooker experience, although obviously it will be more interesting for a fan :)
  • This list looks very much in line with the previous 3 that also have FLs, except it doesn't have the little infoboxes with the top 3 players that 1977/1978 and 1976/1977. Why is that? Shouldn't the format be consistent for the series of articles?
  • This was discontinued from the 1978/1979 list, after the following comment and reply in the FAC discussion. There is also a bit of inconsistency in the tables between years, but I've been reluctant to make changes to the earlier articles as the reviewers for them were satisfied at the time. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the boxes on the right? It looks like three infoboxes on top of each other. The info is in the table. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I realised that they contain some uncited information, too. I can't think of any logic for including "top three", so removed them. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Reasonable!

This looks like it will be an easy support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for your review, PMC. Hopefully my responses are satisfactory. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EnthusiastWorld37

  • Support - I've made a minor edit to the ref numbering in the second paragraph. Apart from that I have no major issues with this list.
    EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:40, 8 May 2023 (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_list_candidates/Snooker_world_rankings_1979/1980/archive1&oldid=1153896251"