Wikipedia:Peer review/Snooker/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Snooker[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to take it to FAC later this year. It's a broad topic, and probably needs a bit more to fit BROAD. I'd suggest we might need to prosify the variants section, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to what else would need fixing in the article. This article is pretty much the holy grail for myself, so any help you can offer would be gratefully received.

Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thoughts (from Rodney Baggins)[edit]

Hi Lee, I've been having a look around some other sports articles, e.g. darts, golf, cricket, etc. to pick up some ideas. None of these are featured articles though, so maybe not all that helpful! I think the snooker article does need a bit of expansion and some of the sections need to be changed around a bit. I think Equipment needs to be higher up in the article, and the Governance section also needs quite a lot of work. I've not put any thought into Variants yet but can look at that later.

  • Equipment section: I'd like to (1) move this section up, and (2) expand and restructure it... The section is too low down in the article. It should at least go before the Governance section, but I'd actually prefer it be placed directly after History and before Rules (which is the order used in the Darts article). Then we get to introduce the important things like the table, cue stick, ball set, etc. before they are used in the Rules section, which then doesn't need to be cluttered with so many links (if these items have already been linked in the Equipment section). Then split into subsections starting with "Table", maybe "Ball set" next, and finally "Accessories". The table variants need to stand out a bit more and the paragraphing needs improving. I think maybe the playing surface info should come directly after the full-size table dimensions, because we're talking about the playing surface of the full-size table, and then variant sizes come a bit later in a new para maybe with bullets? → I could always have a go at doing this in a sandbox for you to look at.
  • Yeah, I'm fine with the sections moving (it's no big deal to undo), so feel free to do so in the main article if it helps. I actually think we could have rules and equipment as one section, with subsections for each, not sure of a great title for it though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Governance section: I've had an idea about how to restructure this, starting with main heading Professional play, to differentiate the professional sport from the type of snooker played by Joe Bloggs down the local club (even though it's essentially the same game). Again, I got that idea from the Darts article, which similarly has a strong amateur following (played in pubs and clubs in the good old days), as well as a commercial professional branch. Subheadings could then be: "Governance", "Tournaments", "World rankings", "Criticism" (or Concerns?). I could also sandbox this first.
  • Sounds ideal to me. Although we do need to also cover governance for non-professional play, for club/league players, the seniors tour, ladies etc. I feel the lack of focus on non-tour to be a major issue, but I don't actually play much snooker, and I'm not sure how it work, or where the sources might be. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few other miscellaneous things have occurred to me that we could maybe clear up at this stage...

  • Numbers: MOS:NUM says "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words..." So we can use either words or figures for numbers below ten, as long as it's consistent throughout the article. Using words does tend to look more formal and I was thinking maybe we could do that, but now I'm not so sure. I think the lead would look better if it said "Joe Davis won fifteen successive world championships" rather than "15 successive world championships" but then there are lots of examples later in the article where spelling it out would look silly, e.g. "the BBC dedicated four hundred hours to snooker coverage, compared to just fourteen minutes forty years earlier" in History. Maybe we could use numerals for the rest of the article? At the moment, it's all very inconsistent.
  • Consistency would only apply to the individual sentences, so that's no big deal. 0-9 have to be in text, otherwise items higher can be either, so long as it isn't "three hundred and one" or something. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "striker": I'm not sure about calling the player at the table "the striker". I think that's probably more of a football term, but it's used in the Rules section a few times. "If the striker pots a red ball" and "This process continues until the striker fails to pot the desired ball..." I don't think it's the right word to use here and I've never heard of "on strike" either, as in "A player may also concede a frame while on strike" > is this a recognised snooker term? I've heard of "strike rate" but that's to do with getting centuries. I looked at the Rules of snooker article and "striker" is used quite a lot in that too. Rewording suggestions: "If a red ball is potted, the player must then pot..."; "This process continues until the player fails to pot the desired ball." and "A player may also concede a frame while in play (or at the table)"?
  • I think that is used to distinguish which player's turn it is (as in to strike the cue ball). I haven't read the rule book, but they will have a specific way of stating this we can borrow (it may be striker though!). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I found it in the official WPBSA rulebook — "striker" is defined in 5. Striker and Turn on page 11. So we can use it but I'd want to make sure it was introduced into the conversation properly and probably via a cuegloss link (I shall have to put it in the glossary first!) In the meantime, it looks as if ref.38 needs updating to this 2019 version of the rulebook. I'll do that... Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • down-table / up-table: I'm pretty sure the terminology we're using here is wrong. We Brits seem to have it the opposite way round to the Yanks when it comes to describing the top and bottom of the table for cue sports, but since snooker was originally a British game we should use the UK terminology here, as in top of table is black spot end, bottom is baulk. In Equipment section, it says "depending on whether the ball is hit down table (towards the black ball spot) or up table (towards the baulk line)" which is clearly not right!
  • As much as it is common terminology, I've always had distain for using top/bottom (and left/right) because it's about context. The bottom left pocket is the green pocket, or at least that's what we see, but when you look from a broadcast the green pocket is in the top right hand pocket. I'd rather specifically state baulk and black spot end, but that's pretty wordy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm busy going through the sections in detail and I can put my comments on here in due course. Cheers for now, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee, I've had a good play around with the article. Please tell me if there's anything you absolutely disagree with and we can work out what to do with it. I've listed below a few more general points for you to think about. I do have quite a few specific questions/comments relating to the individual sections, so I'll put them on here fairly soon when we've got these things sorted out.

  • There's a slight inaccuracy regarding the first World Snooker Championship – although we state the year as 1927, the tournament in fact started in November 1926 and was spread over several months, culminating in the final in May 1927. Also, we say that the world championship has taken place since 1927, but this has in fact been fairly intermittent and it only settled down into an annual knockout tournament in 1969. I think these points need to be made clear in the lead and History sections.
Colour Value
Red 1 point
Yellow 2 points
Green 3 points
Brown 4 points
Blue 5 points
Pink 6 points
Black 7 points
  • Shall we use the ball set table in Billiard ball#Snooker (as shown here) – it's more professional looking and should surely be used in the main Snooker article!
  • I think the article needs a section (probably a subsection of Rules) called "Game structure" (or something similar) that explains the breakoff shot, the striker and turns rule, what a frame is, the composition of a match, etc. Could also include the role of the referee (to oversee the match and ensure that the rules are being followed), currently at bottom of Objective subsection (but I don't think it fits in there).
    • I'm fine with that - but only if it is big enough to warrant a subsection. I feel we could just explain it without the header. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restructured the Governance section and I was going to expand it with information from World Snooker Tour, Snooker world rankings, List of snooker tournaments, Category:Snooker governing bodies – but not too detailed as these are included as Main article links.
    • Yeah, the structure needs a little look at, as currently Governance is referred to in three section heads. Might I suggest that we have the main subsection (professional/amateur), and have that also include the governance? Seems like a natural fit to me. I've made the change - let me know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure there needs to be a separate Tournaments subsection in the Amateur section. I think it would flow better if the related tournaments were just mentioned as we introduced each of the different branches of the amateur game. Also do we want a separate section for Women's snooker or just include it in the Amateur section? I've written a couple of paragraphs on this (main tour open to females, WWS, Reanne Evans, etc.) but don't know where to put it! Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't want to come across as sexist, but right now, the women's game is 100% amateur. Same as the seniors. I think the professional/amateur distinction is fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some stuff about the women's game, pending more sources, and stuck with the separate Tournaments subsection. My concern at the moment is that the World Seniors Tour is described as a professional tour (and at the very least it's probably a pro-am tour) so doesn't that cloud things a wee bit!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that article is wrong, because the WST defines professional as being on the tour. I doubt there is another entity that would define this. I think it's probably still Pro-Am, as Jimmy White, Hendry, Doherty etc are still professional. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you see the Variants section being presented with subsections rather than just a bulleted list (as in Darts article)?
    • No, I don't think so. I think subsections extensuate that we don't have much in these sections. Maybe something similar to Nine-ball#Derived games, with maybe some of the more notable games having a section - such as six-red. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aza24[edit]

  • I'm happy to leave some comments, though I'll likely do so in batchs, first impressions:
  • the "modern era" sounds like an interesting division, though this doesn't seem to be anywhere in the body text
  • I've also noticed that the "modern era" isn't specifically explained in the body, even though it is a term that gets bandied about quite a lot. We briefly mention the "professional era" in Important players but that's something different and dates back to the Joe Davis days. Does probably need addressing properly in the History section. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like this is a game that is predominantly in the UK, though the lead doesn't seem to make this clear; and if it's not, I'd still like to see some information for where it's played the most
  • Now I know we try to summarize topics for WP but from a glancce the article seems pretty short for an article on an entire sport, though I suppose I can't really make that judgement with out reading through first
  • The rules are covered in some detail in the Rules of snooker article so we only really need a summary here. The Equipment section could probably be expanded a bit with subheadings – maybe we need to say something about cue sticks, ball sets, that kind of thing? We're planning to rework the Governance section and make it more substantial, same goes for the Variants section. There's not much to gain from fleshing out the article just for the sake of it, but if you can think of any specific omissions as you read through (apart from the things you've already mentioned, thanks) please let us know. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing[edit]
  • BTW–refs 106–108 & 110 are missing page numbers. Also a bit disappointed that these books are only being referenced once, surely they have more to offer?
  • I'm seeing a lot of sourcing issues here. Really for an entire sport, we should be using and heavily favoring significant literature on the subject.
    • The History of Snooker and Billiards in particular isn't used at all in the history section
    • Not a fan of ref 47, "Snooker for beginners" – from a Weebly website? High quality sources must exist
    • The history section needs a major resourcing I think. Things like ref 5—a 1999 article from The Independent—or Guardian and The New York Times seem vastly inferior to something like The History of Snooker and Billiards Clive Everton, Snooker and Billiards: Techniques, Tactics and Training , or The Crucible's Greatest Matches: Forty Years of Snooker's World Championship in Sheffield; I"m sure there are more. (Hector Nunns and Clive Everton seem like among the go-to people here)
  • What makes Chris Turner a reliable source?
  • The article may be a bit heavy on BBC sport, but nothing to stress over I don't think... Aza24 (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Good to see that there is an ambition to improve the article. With Lee and Rodney both being involved, I'm looking forward to this being an FA soon!

  • It might be worth leaving an update to the WPBSA/WST governance section until more details emerge about the split into "WPBSA Governance and Development" and "WPBSA Players" agreed last year.
  • "The objective of the game is to score more points than one's opponent by potting object balls in the correct order." - I'd omit "by potting object balls in the correct order" here or add in how points can be accumulated through penalty points as well as potting.
  • The professional/non-professional split may be tricky to describe accurately, especially now that some amateurs play in the World Snooker Championship. Apparently the Billiards and Snooker Control Council passed a resolution "abolishing the word 'amateur' from their sport" in 1972, a few hours after the Football Association had done the equivalent. (Source: Ian Morrison, Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Snooker, 1986).
  • Perhaps the "1908 American Tournament" (the first professional snooker tournament, I think, held 1907-08) could be mentioned, along with how snooker often used to be an add-on to English billiards matches before becoming the more popular of the games (when Lindrum, Joe Davis and others became just too good at billiards)?
    • I'm amazed we don't have an article on this, but I've added a part - we do have an article on itwiki! Probably needs some better sourcing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a a few bits in the history that could do with a little expansion/explanation, e.g. "Davis moved the game from a pastime to a professional activity".

Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've seen "modern era" used as starting variously from the 1969 World Snooker Championship, the slightly later Pot Black, and even from the world championship's move to the Crucible in 1977. In some other articles we've used the Telegraph source which refers to the 1969 Championship.
  • One source I'd recommend is Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards - like many of Everton's books, it has a lot copied from his earlier works, but it adds a few colourful anecdotes. Most of the stuff about WPBSA mismanagement and his sacking from the BBC can be skipped though. If you can get hold of it, Horace Lindrum's Snooker, Billiards and Pool has brief and interesting historical sections, but I wouldn't regard it as an essential source.
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen this, I'll try and work my way through these! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments (from Rodney Baggins)[edit]

I'm fairly happy with the first part of the article now, so here are a few outstanding related comments:

Lead
  • We link to Sport in India in the opening sentence and infobox, but I don't really think it's helpful. Would it not make more sense to just link to the country India?
  • Third paragraph starts: "The World Snooker Championship has taken place since 1927." I think this needs expanding a bit, something along the lines of: "The World Snooker Championship was first held in 1927 and has taken place intermittently ever since; first contested on a challenge basis, it settled down into an annual knockout competition in 1969."
  • I suggest we add an explanatory footnote to clarify that the first world championship actually started in 1926 and was spread over six months culminating in the final in May 1927 + one or more of Benny's excellent sources to verify the footnote. The same efn would be tagged in the History section too.
  • I'm slightly concerned that "earning millions of pounds" sounds a bit crass. Could we say "earning large cash prizes" or something else?
    • The issue with not defining it is "large prizes" is relative. A large prize for me might be £500, wheras we are talking about tournaments with over million pound prize purses. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead needs to be expanded very slightly to include a brief mention of some of the other tournaments (Triple Crown), world rankings, the amateur game, women players, snooker variants, etc. none of which are introduced at the moment.
    • Indeed. It also needs something about the derived games, such as six-red and American Snooker. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • The main article History of snooker could do with some work as there's not much point linking to it from an FA if it's poor quality. That would be a separate project that I could help with, but I suggest it should be done sooner rather than later. Benny has loads of sources we could draw on, and we could at least ditch the maintenance template fairly quickly.
    • I agree it needs work, but that is a bit of a different project. Whilst we'd love to link to fantastic articles, all that matters is that we link to the article in question for this article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need a good source that specifies the first rules were finalised in 1884, to verify this important sentence: "The game was further developed in 1884 when its first set of rules was finalised by Sir Neville Chamberlain" - the cited Telegraph source doesn't say anything about it and I haven't been able to find anything myself. Maybe Benny could suggest something for that?
    • I've put a couple of notes on the talk page, but not one that verifies that. I'll look at sources - it seems that in early versions of the game there were 4, then later 5, then later 6 colours, and, until some point, each player had their own cue ball. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
  • I have found a couple of interesting online sources that we might use to back up the historical information:
  • Sentence in 4th para: "In 1927 the first World Snooker Championship was organised by Joe Davis" is followed by a source from The Independent that fails verification so we need something else. Maybe Benny could suggest something for that too?
    • Yes, I'll add some info on the talk page. I think Camkin should be mentioned too. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence in penultimate para: "By 2007, the BBC dedicated 400 hours to snooker coverage, compared to just 14 minutes 40 years earlier." This is actually nonsense because if you look at the source, it says "In 1976, the BBC gave just 14 minutes of TV time to snooker; the next year [1977], all 13 days of the championship at the Crucible were shown. A decade later [1987], the sport received 400 hours of coverage" > so the span is only 11 years, not 40, and it should read: "In 1987, the BBC dedicated 400 hours to snooker coverage, compared to just 14 minutes in 1976." Or am I missing something?
    • I should have something about TV coverage over this period; it's discussed in a few of Everton's books. Again, will add some info to the talk page. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll keep looking. The source I was thinking of really only covers 1980 to 1984. Morrison's Encyclopedia says snooker was first televised in 1937 - firstly an exhibition by Sydney Lee and, in April, a match between Horace Lindrum and Willie Smith. There were other televised matched before Pot Black, e.g. the 1962–63 Television Tournament (snooker), and a report on a form of match-fixing in televised snooker made it into The Sunday Times in 1968. I don't know when the first snooker radio broadcast was. (I know there was at least one! Joe v Fred in 1940.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Equipment
  • I'm still not sure about having the Equipment and Rules sections combined, but I've given it a go to see what it looks like. So, what do you think?
  • I'm also not sure about the section title: "Playing the game", but that's all I could come up with. I thought of "Description of the game" but that's not right because generally everything in the encyclopedia is a description of something or other!
    • I've been BOLD and changed to "gameplay", which is kind of what we are getting at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shall we include the height of the table off the ground as well as the two dimensions already covered?
    • If there's a source, probably a good idea as this is generally standard (unless you play at my club!) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shall we expand on the variant table sizes? It's not clear what we mean by "fewer red balls", and also should we mention smaller cues are needed for the smaller tables?
    • I actually think you can play with a full size cue on any of these tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might it be clearer if we put the various different table sizes in a bullet list, with a bit more explanation about where and why they might be used?
  • I mentioned the up-table/down-table anomoly before. In the UK, the correct usage is "down-table" or "bottom" of the table for baulk end, and "up-table" or "top" of the table for black spot end, even though that goes against instinct when watching on TV where the baulk cushion is always shown at the top, presumably so the players are "framed in shot" for the break-off, long pots from baulk, and standard safety play, etc. According to the glossary the US terms "up" and "down" table are the opposite to ours. So we could either bring this in and try to explain it (probably in a footnote) OR just reword it so we never mention up or down or top or bottom, so as not to confuse anyone!?
    • I think we should try to avoid it. It is confusing, especially as there is no real top or bottom as it's a flat surface. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. I'm still looking at the later sections and will put more comments here when ready. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Break point[edit]

(Appended 16 Feb)...

Rules
  • Do you think we need to properly explain the "break-off" shot? It is mentioned a couple of times (plus computer simulation video) but not actually introduced properly in its own right.
  • Should we mention "snookers required", i.e. the tactic of laying snookers to gain penalty points from fouls when behind on points?
  • Do we need to explain the "foul and miss" rule somewhere? It's quite important and something that people don't understand.
    • Whilst it is something people don't get, it's pretty in-depth and not something played much outside of the professional level. I think we could give it a miss (maybe a rules of snooker article though?) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we mention the "touching ball" scenario? It's also quite important to the game.
    • The touching ball is just a combination of other rules. You can't play a push shot, and the ball is deemed to have already touched the ball if playing away. I'm not sure it is super worth covering in an outline. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still thinking we might need a new subsection called something like "Game structure", which can cover the break-off shot, striker and turns rule, ball in hand, definition of a frame and match, etc.
    • I think our objective section covers it, but it could be renamed to structure. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Governance and tournaments
  • Hatnote link is Category:Snooker governing bodies, but it's piped so that it doesn't show up as a category. Is there any reason for that? Why can't it just be shown for what it is!?
  • Do we need to add something about the secondary tour? (see hidden comment in Professional subsection)
  • Should we mention seedings and tariffs, as covered in the Snooker world rankings article?
    • I think that could be pretty in depth. This is an article on the sport, so giving an overview as to how people qualify for events is fine, but going into seedings and the old points totals and stuff is a bit much. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if the waistcoat para would sit more comfortably at the end of the Tournaments subsection?
Important players
  • "He was also world billiards champion." > this is a very short uninformative sentence and looks a bit out of place as it stands. I'm thinking it needs to be either expanded slightly to make it worthwhile or removed altogether (might it be considered irrelevant to this article which is all about snooker?) Maybe the reader can be expected to link through to his biog page if interested in finding out more about him? Or we could just expand it a bit, to say for example: "...world billiards champion on several occasions" and state the first year (1928). Also need a page number for the Gadsby source (I can't get on with the google books version). I've also found a Guardian source that could be added too.
    • Yeah, it's completely irrelevant to this article. Ronnie O'Sullivan and Steve Davis are big pool players, but not something helpful here. I've removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is considered highly unlikely that anyone will ever dominate the game to this level again." This is a nice addition but surely it's just Everton's opinion?
  • Would it be worth adding a footnote stating that Steve Davis is no relation to Joe Davis and Fred Davis? Some people might wonder.
  • How much do you think we should expand this section (per hidden note)? Where do we draw the line with "important" players? ... Ding Junhui kicked off a snooker revolution in Asia, Jimmy White was a popular underdog, Alex Higgins was a real character and two-time world champion, Paul Hunter was king of the Masters who might have amounted to a lot more if he'd not died young, etc. etc.
Variants
  • Is it OK to delete the hatnote? Everything in the category is adequately covered in the prose so the category link is pretty much superfluous.
    • Removed. I did have to check on this, but it seems like a blind spot. No one really likes them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any ideas how the items should be grouped into paragraphs?
  • What about the redlinks (Snookerpool, Snookerpool Rapide) and the hidden entries (Ten-red snooker, Volunteer snooker)?
References
  • I've used the WPBSA Rulebook quite extensively for the Rules section, maybe a bit too much? The citation has rather a lot of tags against it. I've been adding page numbers where possible using the {{rp}} template. It might be easier to cite the Rulebook in sections but it would have to be treated as a book citation to do that. (Section 1 is Equipment, Section 2 is Definitions, Section 3 is The Game, Section 4 is The Players, Section 5 is The Officials)

Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I suppose it is a little overused, but it is the official rulebook on these things. Perhaps we should remove them from places where we have a different ref already in place? I think as we put in book sources, the use will go down. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you think about this book as an alternative source for some of the rules? Snooker (Know the Game) by Ken Williams. This is 4th edition, 2006. I'd be happy to pick up a cheap used copy off Amazon if you think it's worth it? Unless you or Benny already have a copy...? Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You might find that the Williams book has just reproduced the official rules as at that time - I've seen this in some other books. Looks like there have also been some minor rule changes since 2006. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's a good point Benny! I suppose it's best to stick with the official WPBSA rulebook for that very reason. It would be classed as a reliable primary source. Would it be ok to put the rulebook in the Bibliography to give it the exposure it deserves and maybe make page referencing easier? Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

I try to weigh in on every pre-FAC peer review, but am quite far behind now ... some things to get started, and I will try for more later ...

  • On first glance, the lead seems great !
  • Thanks, but it will need a bit of expansion as it doesn't mention world rankings, amateur versions, variants, and a couple of other things. Does not therefore provide a full summary of the whole article at the moment IMHO. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this article had a mixture ... citations must be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I don't see a problem as long as they are all rendered consistently by the template so the reader is presented with consistent dates (they don't get to see what's going on behind the scenes). We can agree to differ on this though. I just don't like to see other editors going through making loads of date format changes when I feel they are wasting their (own) time (not mine!) Of course, any inconsistencies in the body text must be edited by hand according to the "use dates" template up top. Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will address where appropriate... (you do realise that you've counted "also" five times as a legitimate part of the "See also:" hatnote!?) Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oopsie! I frequently catch myself doing that, but this time I was in too much of a hurry :) Sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I know about that, will link it into the other Rulebook tags when I get round to it. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have all of these scripts enabled. As we are doing some quite wholesale updates, it's likely things will be misformatted, which we can easily fix. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MSH, The in section headings.
  • Where does it say in WP:MSH to avoid using definite article in headings? I assume you mean "The professional tour" and "The amateur game", which would lose their meaning if the "the" were dropped. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right here: Section headings should follow all the guidance for article titles ... why do they lose their meaning without "the" ? If each of those had their article, it would not use "the". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and just changed to "amateur" and "professional", which is the split we are after here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which part of the article do I read to understand what is "snooker" versus what is "billiards" or "pool" as we know it in the USA? (Sorry, short on time and want to fast forward there ... and I don't know what "snooker" even is other than the lead tells me it is a "cue sport".)
  • Thanks, I will read that part as I find time ... is it possible to get that linked in the lead, as most readers never move beyond the lead, and that is helpful info for the average dummy like me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be a way to work that into the lead. I'll have a think about it. I'm noticing that the side articles need some work, so every time I create a main article link I end up with more stuff added to my ToDo list... Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only way I can think of is to specifically state that the game is different than other cue sports, which should be obvious. Once we expand the variants section, we could add a bit to the lede to mention that other games (six-red, American snooker, snooker plus etc) are based on the game and that they mix other facets of cue sports. The issue is that "pool" and "billiards" are names of families of games, and not games themselves. For instance pool has at least 15 competitive(-ish) formats (see nine-ball, ten-ball, six-ball, straight pool, one pocket, bank pool, black pool, Russian Pyramid, eight-ball, blackball etc.), so trying to pinpoint the differences between one game and several series of games is a big move for one sentence. I do think we could do that article at some point (I fear if it isn't me, no one will complete that article) but we are better off explaining what things are similar, (which in the case of billiards, is that you use a cue and it's on a table with balls!). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to read more as I have time, good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Sandy, I've replied to some. Please bear in mind that this is a peer review and more detailed analysis can be done in the FA review which is to come. Your input in that would also be very much appreciated. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different philosophy on detailed analysis at FAC, and believe the nominations should be well prepared before they approach FAC :) In fact, that is codified in the FAC instructions, although Peer review has fallen into disuse, causing FAC to look more like peer review. Best to get as much addressed as possible pre-FAC. My general views on that are at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report (from Rodney Baggins)[edit]

Hello again I've been having a good play around with the article and think now might be a good point to report back. These are the main areas I can see that still need addressing:

  • The lead section is currently lacking a few points. It should contain a complete summary inc. rankings, variants, amateur game, etc. so a few more sentences are needed in the final paragraph or perhaps an extra paragraph.
  • We maybe need to emphasize the recent popularity of snooker in Asia. It's mentioned in History, but probably needs a bit more attention. This WPBSA source has a whole section on Asia that we could draw on.
    • We do mention it "However, the popularity of the game in Asia, with emerging talents such as Liang Wenbo and more established players such as Ding Junhui and Marco Fu, boosted the sport in the Far East", probably needs an expansion to say it is taught in schools/how many Chinese players are on the Tour etc.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More work is needed on the (professional) Tournaments section. There's maybe a bit too much focus on the World Championship, and we could do with covering some of the other important tournaments on the tour (in general terms).
  • Prosify Variants section... I've expanded it quite a lot but not taken the leap yet! I probably need some help with this as I'm not sure of the best way to group the items.
  • The article does need some more substantial sourcing, especially for the History and Important players sections, possibly including a Bibliography to highlight the most important ones. We probably need to identify the main lofty tomes, put them in a Bibliography, and cite them to death in the article, per Aza24 comment. This is likely to be a mammoth project in itself... Benny has made a good start getting some sources together but I've not looked at any of it in detail just yet.

I have some specific comments and questions on the outstanding sections, and I've added them to my Detailed comments section above. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree these are the only parts I can see away from pushing it to FAC. I'll take a look at variants. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a (albiet simple) start to the variants section. Our resident pool expert SMcCandlish may need to help find some details on "snookerpool", I only found some broad mentions in ebooks on google books. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I've heard that term before. Is it playing with snooker balls on a pool table? I've done that with removable pocket shims. Or playing pool with snooker-sized balls on a snooker table?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only info I have is "Snookerpool, a variant played on a nine-ball pool table with ten reds in a triangular pack", so it could easily be a haux, but I'd rather see if we can find out about it before we delete it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not proof that Snookerpool doesn't exist, but it's not in the list of variants in Shamos' Encyclopedia. (Listed at Talk:Snooker#Miscellaneous_Notes). He has "Snooker Pool" and "Snooker's Pool" (both two words rather than one) as simply other names for Snooker. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to a point above about TV coverage, in the UK, there were 398 hours in 1985, 394 in 1986 and 357 in 1987. These were the most hours for any sport in 1985 and 1986, but second to cricket in 1987. (Source: Snooker cast in minor role, Author: John Goodbody, Date: Tuesday, Apr. 19, 1988. Publication: The Times (London, England), Issue: 63059, page 48 - should be available via Wikilibrary) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I've just added Peall's book to the bibliography and noticed that he has a whole chapter devoted to "Snooker pool". See contents page in this Amazon sample. I don't have a copy of the book so can't read the chapter. I suspect that "snooker pool" was probably just an early/alternative name for "snooker", as suggested above by Benny, and the word 'pool' was eventually dropped leaving just 'snooker'. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I bought the kindle version to find out - it is literally just about snooker. It says "the game of snooker pool has become so popular...." and afterwards just talks about snooker (specifically the break). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The book actually even says "rarely is side useful in gaining position" which I'm sure every professional would disagree with, but this is an old text. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rodney, I've been on a couple other projects the last few weeks. Are we just looking at improving the lede, and citing with a bibliography? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a list of sources I have access to at User:BennyOnTheLoose/Library - mainly for my own use but let me know if there is anything you would like verified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, yes, I've been taking a break from this myself recently. The main thing I can see that needs working on is building up a watertight bibliography with comprehensive sourcing throughout the article. I can try making a start on that. It could be done with Harvard-style referencing using sfn short-cites, a bit like in this example. I've done it before so the mechanics of it are not a problem, it's just the actual material sourcing that I'll need lots of help with, especially as I don't have access to (most of) the books myself! Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Lee, don't forget there are still a few things in my detailed comments section above that you've not responded to yet (starting at "Governance and tournaments")... Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I'll take a look now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've finally gotten around to the above. Selfishly, I'd like to nominate this one for the last round of the WikiCup, which would mean I'd like to nominate this one around 20 July. I think that gives us enough time to get the bibliography in order, and cleanup whatever else we think. If you can't wait, I'm happy to do this earlier, or if you think there is still too much to do, let me know! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got hold of Dominic Sandbrook's Who Dares Wins: Britain, 1979-1982. London: Allen Lane. 2019. ISBN 978-1-846-14737-1. OCLC 1123871965. at the library yesterday, having seen snippets in some Google Books previews. It has a whole chapter about snooker and might be useful. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility comments from Thrakx[edit]

  • Per WP:MOSALT, all of the images in the article should have the appropriate alt parameter. I would even recommend alt text for the scoring table images, something short like |alt=Red snooker ball.
  • If possible, I recommend moving the image of Ronnie O'Sullivan a bit farther down from Joe Davis', because there is a minor sandwiching effect between those two images for desktop screens smaller than 14 inches.
Colour Value
Red snooker ball Red 1 point
Yellow snooker ball Yellow 2 points
Green snooker ball Green 3 points
Brown snooker ball Brown 4 points
Blue snooker ball Blue 5 points
Pink snooker ball Pink 6 points
Black snooker ball Black 7 points
  • Per MOS:DTAB,
    • the table in scoring section should have a caption. It can be hidden by writing it like this: |+ {{sronly|caption}}
    • the table should have scopes of headers (! scope="col" | and ! scope="row" |). To stop most visual changes to the table (except the darker background), you can add the plainrowheaders class to the top of the table at {| class="wikitable".
    • To the right is what a more accessible scoring table would look like, which also includes alt texts for the cue ball images! Thrakkx (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thrakkx: Thank you for these comments. I think we've covered it all. Please can you take a look. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! Thrakkx (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally annoyed we got this far into a peer review, and I didn't even realise we didn't have ALT. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably my fault, as I always forget about the alt attribute but will be more careful in future! Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee Vilenski it's been over a month since the last comment at this PR, and usually articles are closed after a month of inactivity. Are you still interested in receiving comments in this PR? Z1720 (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have set a date for the FAC nomination (probably the 20th or so), so this can be closed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, can you close it when you are ready for its FAC, or if you want you can close it today? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Snooker/archive2&oldid=1033895780"