Jump to content

Talk:1971 World Snooker Championship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorrect/Missing scores

[edit]

It appears that Owen beat Squire 19-18 not 26-11. Also Pulman 25-12 Morgan, Pulman 26-11 Squire are missing. Nigej 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And were is a reliable source for these scores? Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 09:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found one and corrected. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 09:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venue

[edit]

"took place at Sydney, Australia" but "Matches were spread round Australia" which is a little confusing. Nigej 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed as unreferenced. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 09:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date

[edit]

Global Snooker reference says November but article says "It was played in between October and November" (which is not very good English either) Nigej 09:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 09:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite

[edit]

I've done a major rewrite of this article, based mainly on the Sydney Morning Herald which is available online through Google newspapers. Sadly some days are missing including 31 Oct and the whole of November. Some snippets are to be found in The Times and The Glasgow Herald.

The previous article was mainly based on http://web.archive.org/web/20101228164822/http://www.global-snooker.com/professional-snooker-tournaments-archive-world-championship-1971.asp and http://www.snookerdatabase.co.uk/EventResults.aspx?EventKey=41 which seem to be copies of each other.

cuetracker has more detail and seems to largely based on the SMH.

The old article was full of errors: "between October and November 1970" when it started in September, "in Sydney, Australia" when it was at various locations in NSW + Brisbane, "Spencer also made the highest break of the tournament with 126" when Charlton had a 129, "In the final, Spencer compiled three centuries in successive frames (105, 107, 126)" which is not true, Reardon/Morgan match "was declared null and void, as Morgan missed final session" when Reardon had already won the match 20-10. The article did have Simpson/Pulman score as 22–15 which is as reported in the SMH, although the reference given makes no sense (global-snooker and snookerdatabase had 21-16 for this match). Interestingly Reardon/Mans is 21-16 in SMH although previously here and elsewhere the score is given as 22-15.

The table in global-snooker and snookerdatabase has frames difference and points column although these are never reported in SMH.

SMH is missing from Google newspapers for the final few matches. The last table is after match 13 (20 October edition). On 22 October, after Reardon's win over Morgan (match 14), his 3rd win, the SMH reports that he had qualified for the semi-finals, joining Spencer who also had 3 wins. This makes sense since, at that stage, only two other players can get to 3 wins (winner of Charlton/Owen match + Simpson if he beats Mans). However the main confusion is over how the semi-final draw was organised. The 22 October SMH reports that Reardon will play Spencer in the second semi-final. This is where the main confusion is. At the time Reardon and Spencer still had to play each other and Charlton, Owen and Simpson also one match to play. So the final order of the group was still undecided and the semi-final draw can't have been based on the 1v4, 2v3 system that we might expect. Maybe it was based on seedings or some system to try to get an Australian finalist, but it's completely unclear.

Prize money remains unclear although £2,333 for the winner is quoted in some source (which is perhaps 5,000 A$) Nigej (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1971 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 21:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Note: I've previously added to this article. According to xtools my contribution to it is 1.1%. I don't consider this a "significant contribution" due to the low proportion of the article this represents, and because my edits were not about anything fundamental. Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. I'll make what I regard as uncontroversial minor changes as I go through. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on the article, Lee Vilenski - my comments so far are below, I don't expect to raise anything else. I haven't found any major issues. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review Comments

Infobox

Copyvio and plagiarism check

  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector has no matches above 4.8%. I looked through those with more than 1%, and have no concerns.

Overview

  • Might be worth spelling out somewhere that this is regarded in sources as the 1971 event even though it took place in 1970, other wise the first line of the lead could look a bit odd to a reader who could reasonably expect the 1971 Championship to be held in 1971.
  • "the sport was popular in the British Isles". I don't have data to hand, but I think it still is! Consider something like "..originally popular mainly in...", if sources support it. (I note that the current wording has been passed in FA reviews, so this is very much an optional change).
  • Consider bringing the dating of "the modern era" out of the footnote and into the article, as the usage won't be familiar to all readers.
  • The basis of the incomplete round-robin seems, in Clive Everton's telling, to be shrouded in mystery. Instead of "until four players remained, where it reverted to a single elimination format" maybe something like "from which four players qualified to the single elimination format rounds"?

Format

  • "This was the first time the championship was held outside the United Kingdom" - consider an expansion or a footnote to cover off the two 1965 challenge matches in South Africa.
  • "... in which each competitor played a three-day, 37-frame match against four of the other eight competitors." seems to leave open the possibility that matches were one player against four. How about "... in which each competitor played four three-day, 37-frame matches." or "... in which the matches were of 37 frames, played across three days, and each competitor played four of the other eight competitors."
  • "The number of frames needed to win a match increased at the semi-finals stage, which were played as the best-of-49, and the final as the best-of-73 frames." doesn't read quite right to me.

Round-robin rounds

Knockout rounds

Round-robin stage

  • Looks fine.

Table

Knockout stage

Image

Lead

References

  • Depth and breadth of coverage is appropriate. No significant issues found with references, which are from reliable sources and support the text, subject to comments above. There are a couple of places where references be re-ordered for tidiness, e.g. [17][15], [20][18][19], [49][18][19]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1971_World_Snooker_Championship&oldid=1196070690"