Talk:1964–68 World Snooker Championships

Pulman - Williams 1965

The Pulman-Williams contest in 1965 WAS in fact played in the format of 47 matches - NOT frames. Please do not keep removing the (matches) tag after the scoreline. Sources? Read the third question in this page. Or read any of Clive Everton's snooker books; for instance The Embassy Book of World Snooker or Guinness Book of Snooker. /Bellatrix9 (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The source does not say anything it being a match series. You will have to find a reference for the information to remain. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see you citing any sources when you claim that it was not played over 47 matches, whereas I myself gave you no less than three sources. The books are written by Clive Everton, one of the world's most well-known experts in snooker statistics. And for the web source: If you write out '47 matches' instead of '47 frames', that's what I'd call a match series! I have now cited one of the books as a source on the main page. /Bellatrix9 (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to cite a source saying it was played over frames because I haven't made a claim either way. The source for the article doesn't state these are frame scores, it just gives the scores and leaves it at that. You added information that wasn't provided by the original source, so the onus is on you to back up your information with a reference. I'm not against the information being added, just against sloppy editing. Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, sorry about that. Now at least the book source is there on the page. /Bellatrix9 (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

1965 World Championship

Armbrust, I see that you changed the 'matches' tag from the second to the third of the three 1965 matches. And you cite this page. However, the 'FINAL: (Series of matches in South Africa)' part of that page refers to the second and not the third of the matches, that's why it's written within parantheses. That's clearly stated in this page, (since you removed my book source, where it was also clearly stated). /Bellatrix9 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the book reference to the article. Armbrust has made an honest mistake here since the Global Snooker reference is ambiguous and the fact that Van Rensburg is SA.Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

1967

What happened to the Championship in 1967? 213.246.123.171 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There was no event in this year. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 22:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Challenge matches in South Africa - dates

I see that cuetracker has the Pulman/Williams match as being from October 1st 1965 - December 11th 1965 (cuetracker.net/tournaments/world-championship/1965/921) and the Pulman/Van Rensburg match being from January 24th 1966 - January 29th 1966 (cuetracker.net/tournaments/world-championship/1966/922). The 11 December seems incorrect since https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LVxAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fqMMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1352%2C2505902 implies thta the 45th match was on the 14th (and there were two more matches apparently). As for the 24 to 29 January dates; they are plausible. Annoyingly I've totally failed to find a single newspaper report about this match. We know that the Test match (intended to the first of a series) was from 3 to 7 January, so a date either before this or after is possible. Note also that https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=M1xAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fqMMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3557%2C3523001 seems to shows that the Rex Williams maximum was actually on 22 December not 23 December as it says here: Maximum_break#Firsts. All a bit of mess really. Nigej (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1964–68 World Snooker Championships/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Epicgenius (talk · contribs) 18:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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:
· · ·

Prose, POV, and coverage

Lead

• Since 1927 the World Snooker Championship was played as a single-elimination tournament - The verb is simple past tense, but the sentence structure indicates that it should be a continuous past tense. I suggest "had been played".
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• This began in 1964 organised by the Billiards Association and Control Council. - I would add a comma after "began in 1964" since that would set off the qualifying phrase "organised by the Billiards Association and Control Council".
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• Three of the matches played at the Burroughes Hall in London, England, two across South Africa, one in St George's Hall, Liverpool and the final match in Bolton - I also suggest semicolons after "England" and "South Africa" because this is a serial list wherein some of the phrases have commas.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Background

• English player Rex Williams ran a four player tournament in Blackheath in 1964 which was the first commercially sponsored professional snooker event since 1960. - you can condense this by cutting out "which was" and adding a comma after 1964. I.e. "...in Blackheath in 1964, the first commercially sponsored professional snooker event since 1960." Also, is there a particular reason for the hiatus?
  • Just because of the earlier lack of interest, snooker just became a bit less interesting to sponsors. Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
• The championship would be defended on a challenge basis, with defending champion Pulman facing a prominent snooker professional with the winner becoming the new champion. - I would rephrase this because the word "with" is used twice in this sentence to set off a phrase.
  • Split sentence to avoid. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary

• Looking at the Results section, there are two events in 1964, one in March 1965, two in South Africa, one in April 1966, and one in March 1968. However, the 1964 section has three paragraphs, although the first two paragraphs are about the same event. I wonder if it would be easier to combine these first two paragraphs.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• The winner of June 1965 South African Professional Championship - should this be "the winner of the June 1965..."?
  • Indeed. Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• a 5-day 35-frame match - can it be spelled out as "a five-day 35-frame"? Here, two numerical figures are used in short succession, which looks awkward.
  • Yeah, that's fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• with the player who won the most matches winning the championship - this wording is also a bit strange. I would suggest just outright saying that the first player to win four matches became the championship winner, since winning 4 of 7 is automatically a majority.
  • That does make more sense. Changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

• Can the notes and references be split into at least their own subsections? I understand if you don't want to do this for consistency.
  • That's fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• The Times should be linked in the first reference where it's mentioned if it's linked only once. Tight now, it is linked in ref 13 but the first The Times reference is ref 4.
  • done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Everything else seems ok.

Images and copyright

• Except for the flags (which are appropriately licensed), there are no images, and therefore there are no issues.
• A copyright violation check came up clean. epicgenius (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

General comments

• Thanks for taking a look at this one Epicgenius. I've caught up with the initial comments.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Lee Vilenski: No problem. Putting this article on hold, just a few minor things. epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • All right. This looks good to go, so I'm promoting this to good article status. epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)