Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2019 WPA World Ten-ball Championship/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 27 March 2021 [1].

2019 WPA World Ten-ball Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a professional ten-ball pool tournament held two years ago. The championship hadn't been held since 2015, when it was won by Ko Pin-yi. Ko lost in the semi-finals of the event to Joshua Filler, who played Ko's brother Ko Ping-chung in the final. Filler, the reigning nine-ball world champion went into an early lead, but was ultimately defeated 10-7 by Ko. The event featured a $132,000 prize fund, very large for a pool event, and played as both a double-elimination and single-elimination tournament.

This is the second nomination, after the first drew little commentary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Accessibility review

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

"double-elimination" or "double elimination"?
To answer your question, maybe 'The tournament was played as a double-elimination knockout structure or bracket ...'?
I've just put knockout. Our own article uses double-elimination, so so did I. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that does it. If you want to add ', known as a break-and-run' then you can use that term thereafter if you want.
We do only use it once more, but I have done so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early rounds" section title. Surely the "early rounds" were the "Double elimination bracket" rounds?
  • "struggled to play against Ko's safety play", "play ... play". Maybe 'struggled against Ko's safety play'?
  • "after snookering himself behind the 10-ball." And for the non-initiated this would be?
    • So, a snooker (named as something that is used in the game of the same name) is when you can't directly hit the ball you are supposed to. Think of it like a solar eclipse. In this case, the cue ball, (the one you hit) is beyond the 10-ball, but you are trying to hit another ball. Basically it's not what you want to do. I'm not sure what other wording can be used to explain this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I have a bad habit of asking rhetorical questions and/or acting the simpleton when reviewing. I knew what you meant. I was concerned that many readers wouldn't. Hmm. 'after inadvertantly leaving the ball he needed to play obscured behind the 10-ball' or similar?
Reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The semi-finals and final were held on June 26, the last day of the competition.! Optional: do we need to be told that the final was held on the last day of the competition?
    • I was getting at this was the last day of the whole event. If you remember in the format section, there was other events (such as the national BCA championship that was also going on). I've removed this though as it isn't relevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after losing the lag". ?
  • "produced two dry breaks." Dry break?
  • "capitalizing on a scratch from Ko". Referring to Wiktionary, and looking only at definitions specifying that they apply to sport "scratch" can mean seven different things. Even restricting that to cue sports it can mean two different - and opposing - things.
  • "and later tied up the match". Is "up" correct in this context?
  • "Ko played a kick shot" Could "kick shot" be explained in line?
Unaddressed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Lee Vilenski, that all looks good. See what you think of my responses above, and then I'll think about having a final read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Looks like it is just the two terms regarding "banking" and "kick shot" which I'm struggling to rewrite. The only way to really explain in prose what a bank (or double) is would really need the citation to state which rail was being used. I could write "Ko played the 1-ball against the cushion, and into the side pocket", but something like a double is very common language for pool. I feel we would be dumbing down the article and not improving it to add this additional words, unless you have a better wording. I have reworded the kick shot variant, let me know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second read through
[edit]

Most of the below are by way of suggestions. See what you think.

A nice job there. Flow versus fullness of explanation is frequently a tricky balance. Where I am not completely happy I think that the context gives a reader enough to go on. Supporting.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog the Mild. It certainly is a balancing act finding terms that are suitable to be reworded, and ones that would actually make the article worse by replacing. Thanks for the in-depth review; I hope we get a little more eyes on this one. (I'll get some FAC reviews done as soon as I can). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. I am currently working on an article I hope to bring to FAC where I need to explain late-Medieval siege equipment and techniques *eyeroll* .
I'll put it up for a source review.
That would be good. We have been missing your reviews. When you get the time, wrapping up the 1987 FA Cup Final review would be good. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I'd assume a trebuchet can just be described as "like a cannon, but not" :P. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

[edit]

I'll give a detailed review at some point. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, one major comment I have is... In the participant summary section, can you write out who were the key participants like you usually do in your other FAs? (e.g. Who were the former champions/finalists, contenders, and top-ranked players from each tour? Any unique lower-ranked players worth noting? Also, can you summarize what the seven tours are? I assume the WPA is the main one. Are the other six also professional? Related to how the tours work, if you are for instance a top Asian player, does that mean you only play on the WPA or are you a member of both the WPA and the APBU?) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would do more, if I knew more. I don't usually do this - I think I did this on maybe two other events? It's a bit WP:OR/WP:SYNTHy to an extent, because the sources don't say it, they just say that they were participating, and the other ref shows they won/final in the event before. There had only been four prior events, and the only former finalist was the defending champion who I went into depth talking about. I see the need for something to describe the tours, but most of them are the local tours (European, Asian, American etc.) with the WPA being a ranking for other world stage tournaments (like the World nine-ball championship). There seems to be little information as to which players actually qualified from which tour, or how they came up with that number. The official event info list doesn't have anything [2]. I do have a list of the players who qualified from the local competitions, but that's about it. I have signed up for Inside Mag Pool & Billiard magazine, I'm just awaiting my archives access and see if it is mentioned there, but that would be the last hope really. None of the individual governing bodies mention this at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine about not including the stuff you don't have. In part with regard to qualification, I feel like the ranking system(s) itself could use a little more of an explanation (see my comments below). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed comments... Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Been a little busy recently, will update on this in a day or so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Format

  • Probably worth adding that all previous editions were in the Philippines
  • Also worth adding that the first edition was in 2008
  • Was it ever intended to be held annually?
  • stage the event along with the World Pool-Billiard Association (WPA) <<<=== Aren't the WPA also who Predator Group partnered with (like CueSports International)?
  • Is there a reason the tournament is not held regularly? (Is ten-ball less played than nine-ball or other variants in general?)
  • with plans to host the event for three years <<<=== Which event? This one or the Players Championship?
  • "The WPA World Ten-ball Championship will be played" <<<=== This could be rephrased so you are not WP:CRYSTAL-balling
  • Relatedly, if you are referring to this event with the "for three years" comment above, then that is repetitive with the "will be played" sentence.
  • such as the Euro Tour and the WPA <<<=== Is the WPA a tour?
  • with 16 qualifiers, held in events from June and July 2019 <<<=== I don't think this wording ("16 qualifiers, held in events") makes sense. (unless the qualifiers are part of broader events and not isolated events on their own?)
  • The tournament was played as a double-elimination knockout structure until 16 players remained, when it became a single-elimination tournament. <<<=== Looking at the link to the draws, it looks like they refer to these as stages (i.e. a double-elimination stage and a single-elimination stage). The tournament cannot "become a tournament".
  • Also in that sentence, it would be "double-elimination format" or "double-elimination knockout format", albeit the Wikipedia article on knockout format says that would imply single-elimination (not sure if that's correct).
  • Clarify that the double-elimination format implies players need to win three matches to advance to the single-elimination stage. (Is that correct?)
  • The event was also played ===>>> Matches were played
  • with each player taking turns to break in each rack ===>>> in which the players take turns to break each rack ("in each rack" seems to suggest both players break in one rack. Also, I don't know, but is "to break" correct versus "at breaking" or "at the break"?)
  • It was broadcast ===>>> The event was broadcast

Participant summary

  • The player list has 64 spots, but only 62 of them are actually filled?
  • local qualifying events ===>>> regional qualifying events ("local" sounds like "near the tournament". I think they were global, right?)
  • "in the following tours" implies a list of tours. I think a format like "World Pool Association (16)" where it's just the tour (and then the number of qualifiers in parentheses) would fit that better.
  • Relatedly, these seem like organisations, not tours?
  • With regards to my comments last week, no worries about including information you don't have.
  • The current explanation seems to imply that each tour has its own ranking. Is that correct? Or do the spots go to the top-ranked players from each tour according to the overall WPA rankings?
    • So as far as I can tell (nothing seems to go into actually in-depth about it), the WPA has a very loose ranking, based on how people do in the world championships and select other events. I think the allocation for the WPA takes priority, but the sources don't say anything about this. I did reach out to both the WPA and CSI on this, but neither got back to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning who are the top-ranked players? Or are these players not necessarily the favourites? (I could imagine that being the case if being good at 9-ball doesn't mean you are good at 10-ball?)
    • Yeah, the rankings are generally for other games (such as 9-ball and 8-ball), so it's difficult to say who is the theoretical favourite, other than who was the number one ranked player by the WPA, but unless I've mentioned it in the prose, the sources themselves don't credit this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relatedly, the tournament wasn't seeded or anything?
  • If you don't have who qualified by tour, maybe state which countries had the most representatives?

Prize fund

  • Okay.

Double elimination

Single elimination

Draw

  • The following results only show the final 16 players. ===>>> The following results only show the single-elimination stage comprising the final 16 players.
  • All matches were ===>>> All matches in this stage were
  • Players in bold represent winners: ===>>> Players in bold represent winners.

Overall

  • I noticed in general that you don't usually include the ranking points distribution, or any description of the ranking system. Is there a reason why you leave it out? I didn't even realize this was a ranking event until I found it in the WPA rankings here.
  • It doesn't makes sense to link the balls that aren't the 10-ball. Those links go to the disciplines, not the balls.
    • That's more of an issue with our glossary than the links. Eight-ball (the game), and 8-ball (the ball), are different. I have been meaning to tighten up the glossary, but I'm not quite there yet. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the more important comments above have to do with the sections outside of the tournament summary. The comments on the tournament summary are more minor.
    • Yeah, it's a bit sad that there is no more information. Even looking at [3], there's no info on where the points actually come from, nor what the next event is going to be a ranking event. It's a bit different from snooker, where the rankings are professional or bust, and are clearly defined. I don't mind adding any notes, or something to say it's a WPA ranking event in there somewhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After these comments are addressed, I'll look through it again. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replies / New comments

Looks good. I agree that I wish more information on some of the technical details were available. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from MaranoFan

[edit]
Those are the few comments from me. A great article overall :) --NØ 11:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look at this MaranoFan, I've looked at the above and given some comments. I'll see what I can do about the commons image. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am now going to support.--NØ 10:51, 25 March 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/2019_WPA_World_Ten-ball_Championship/archive2&oldid=1014591509"