Talk:1985 World Snooker Championship final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article1985 World Snooker Championship final is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Good topic star1985 World Snooker Championship final is the main article in the 1985 World Snooker Championship final series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 27, 2021.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 11, 2020Good article nomineeListed
October 20, 2020Good topic candidatePromoted
February 12, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 27, 2022.
Current status: Featured article

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

25th Anniversary frame[edit]

This is like saying there should be no mention of New Year in the Auld Lang Syne article, because the article is not about New Year. The anniversary frame is wholly to do with the 1985 final. It has much more relevance here than it has in the 2010 World Snooker Championship article. You'll be glad to know that I can find nothing on the 20th Anniversary, so will not be adding it to the article. Mannafredo (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a great effort - well done. I've tightened up the text a little to improve the English and remove an American term 'pocketed'. I notice that Ted Lowe's quote about Taylor 'chancing his arm' pn the final black has been removed, however. I trust my edit has been useful.Regards, Billsmith60 (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Has someone just pasted that 'road to the final' from a Champions League page? Heh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.233.231 (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was. Don't like it? Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 15:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong here[edit]

"Taylor then won six of the seven frames to trail only 7–9 overnight..........Going into the final session, he won two of the first three frames to trail 8–11"

If he'd won two of the first three it would've been 9-10 surely? I can't find a record of the exact order of frames won from the sources given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.86.138 (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2013‎

 Fixed Armbrust The Homunculus 18:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1985 World Snooker Championship final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 19:38, 2 September 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:

· · ·

Happy to be challenged on, or discuss, any of my review comments. I'll make what I consider to be uncontroversial minor edits as I got through. (Note: I've made one edit to the article previously - to disambiguate a link.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio and plagiarism?

  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows 6.5%. I checked through all matches of 1% or above and have no concerns.

Images

  • Both photos are free to use and are appropriate.
  • Looking at WP:CAPLENGTH I believe that adding captions showing when the pictures were taken is optional, but as these pictures are 19 and 25 years after the final, it could be considered (e.g. "Davis in 2010").
    • I've added a small caption. They did exist before, but the formatting stopped them from being displayed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding something to the box to show that the stats are as at the time of the final. Whilst this will be obvious for ages, it's not so obvious for world rankings, and as we know (it's covered under "Legacy" here), Davis went on to win a further three world titles as well as being runner-up in 1986.
  • Some of the info in the pic boxes is not exactly sourced in the article.(e.g. championships/finals (not quite sourced in the match report section, which is less specific); ages; Taylor's seeding.)
    • I have sourced these items/added to the body. If anything is missing let me know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Road to the final

  • "Australian" but no other nationalities mentioned. I think it can probably be omitted as the table which includes nationalities is just below.

Match report

  • "Davis was strong favourite going into the tournament .." - doesn't this belong in "Road to the final"?
    • I've spaced this as the Road being for the preceding rounds, whilst the match report covers the prior meetings to this match in particular (which is what this sentence leads into.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The final frame

  • Might be worth mentioning what happened on the blue and pink - article currently goes from Taylor potting brown to it being decided on the black.
  • "a reasonable middle-distance" - not sure about this. What was reasonable about it?
  • "regular pot" - again, not sure about this. Is there another word that can be used instead of regular?
  • Should the last para be under "Legacy"?
  • Do you think something about the finger-wagging and cue wielding by Taylor, and Davis' quote "It was all there in black and white" is worth including?
  • "several records" but only two mentioned - any others?
  • Is it worth futureproofing the last para slightly by adding some "As of 2020 .." or equivalent statements?

Match statistics

  • Is having the winning scores both in bold and with daggers for accessibility reasons?
  • I'm not sure that it would be obvious to a reader not familiar with snooker that the numbers in brackets next to the frame scores are breaks. (I had a go at a final table for 1981 World Snooker Championship, but that probably has its own issues.)

Legacy

  • Wikilink Masters? Or is the 1987 link adequate? A Masters link might, I think, be useful to quickly see the prestige attached to that tournament.
  • '"around the angles"' / '"cocked hat" shot' should probably be explained.
  • Note: I was expecting a bit more under legacy, but actually having looked at a few snooker books, this section covers it as is. (The books basically all refer to it as "the greatest" snooker match, but not linked to any info about effects on participation in the sport, prize money, international appeal etc.)

References

  • 22 and 23 (ESPN) seem to be the same source so could be combined.

External links

  • The first BBC link requires registration, and I guess may not be available outside the UK. I'm not sure whether it passes WP:ELREG. Should this be kept?
  • For me, the second BBC link causes a .ram file to download rather than opening a site.

Lead

  • "played on the weekend of 27–28 April" consider reword to cover off the overspill into the early hours of Monday mentioned in the following paragraph.
    • I think we already cover this with the timed finish. We don't do this on tournamnent articles, so I'd rather not set a precident. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reaching the zenith of its popularity" - I don't think this is included in the main article.
  • "the eighth year of the BBC's coverage" looks uncited.
    • I couldn't find a suitable place to shoehorn it in, so I've (regretfully) cited in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth futureproofing the last para slightly by adding some "As of 2020 .." or equivalent statements?

Initial comments above, Lee Vilenski. Nothing major, but I may have some further comments later, after looking over some sources again. Thanks for your work on this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Taylor was never ahead" - not completely true[edit]

The claim that "Until the final frame, Taylor was never ahead" is not completely true. After the 15–15, Taylor went on to lead in frame 31 with 6–0, before finally losing the frame with 6–66. This can be seen in this recording, 10:43:08. So, for a short time and a tiny edge, he was ahead of Davis, even before the final frame. The wording should be corrected in this regard. --KnightMove (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have solved it myself by adding "... ahead in frames." --KnightMove (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]