Talk:2019 Tour Championship

vandalism

Someone modified this maliciously. I tried to undo but couldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.71.122 (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Mark Allen

If Mark Allen wins the final with highest break price he can win the coral cup with 192.500£, so I think it's mathematically possible, isn't it? unless you don't take into account the highest break bonus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.202.207.135 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

http://www.worldsnooker.com/rocket-wins-stunning-black-ball-finale/ says "O’Sullivan will win the cup unless Robertson takes the title." so I think we can assume that the high-break prize won't count. Nigej (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

High breaks don't count towards ranking - ever. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite?

"The best-of-25 final will be the first non-World Championship match of this length since the 1992 UK Championship final and will be staged over two days." is mildly confusing in my view. The 1992 UK Championship final was best-of-31 over 4 sessions, so in some sense it was not a "match of this length" - it was longer. the 1989 British Open final was the last best-of-25, although planned for 4 sessions. Nigej (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

It's supposed to read that this was the last match played to a length of 25 frames or more outside the world championships since 1992. Feel free to reword. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

O'Sullivan as number 1?

Is O'Sullivan even ranked number one? I've seen tonnes of changes, but aren't these still provisional rankings? There is still the China Open before the next cut off, right? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I understand it: The World Rankings are updated after every ranking event. However, only some of these are used for seedings etc. The latter rankings are the "cut offs". We seem to maintain a historical list of the cut-off rankings but not the full set. Nigej (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 Tour Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Reviewer: HawkAussie (talk · contribs) 03:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• See no issues here

First Round

• It's probably just me but you have the first round in this section and then in the draw you have the quarter-finals. Which is it
  • Same thing. An eight person tournament has the first round as the quarterfinal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Selby then won 6 frames - Possible change to Selby then won the next six frames.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...which included 3 centuries - Change the 3 to a three.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...match at 6–6. - Maybe change to six all.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Selby then won frame 14 - Remove the word then.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...won 4 of the next 5 - won four of the next five.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• Wilson then captured the next three frames - Remove the word then
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-finals

• ...best of 19 frame matches, played between two sessions, held between 21–22 March 2019 - Properly need to break that sentence there.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• In addition to the Masters, the two also met in the final of the 2018 Northern Ireland Open, Trump winning on both occasions. - Is this sentence really needed?
  • I think so. It's important that they had met in two finals of tournaments in the season prior to this match. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...tied the score at 1–1 - Change it to one all.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...won frames 3 and 4 - three and four not 3 and 4. That is also the same with frame five instead of frame 5.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...two of the next three frames to lead 8–5. O'Sullivan won both... - You could incorporate the previous sentence into the other one.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• I don't know if it's just me but that last frame seems to be a bit long to go WP:SUMMARY.
  • RS also go into large depth about this frame. Deciders are a big deal, especially winning a match on the final ball. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...won the next 5 frames - five instead of 5.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...to tie the match 6–6. - six all not 6-6.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Final

• ...match would also win the Coral Cup, awarded - Change this to "...match also won the Coral Cup"
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...tie the match 2–2 - two all
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...frames 5,6 and 7 - frame five, six and seven. This is also the same with frame 8 and 9 as they should be frame eight and nine.
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...to lead 7–5, and after the interval 8–6 - This is missing something here.
  • Not sure I see it, quite common to ignore frames where both players win one where it's unimportant. I've changed the wording, however. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...session to tie the match 8–8 - eight all not 8-8
  • Y Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• This is the same with 9-9 and 10-10 as they should be nine all and ten all.
  • Y for 9-9. MOS:NUM says 10 can be written either ten or 10. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
• ...the frame and tournament - the frame and the tournament.
  • Common wording to win frame and match as well as frame, match and tournament. "the" is just an added word Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Prize fund

• See no issues here

Coral Cup

• For all three events qualification was based on players - Missing a comma between events and qualification.

 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Final Comments

Reference 10 and 27 both have redirects as they are now in orange. The copyvio is only at 12% so that bit is fine. Other than that this probably needs a bit of work on it before I will be able to give this a GA. HawkAussie (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: Just realized that the picture of Judd Trump might cause an issue in the future. I am just putting that up there.

This all seems very easy to fix. Shouldn't take long. I'll get on with it as soon as I can. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed/commented on all of the above HawkAussie thanks for your speedy response. What is the issue with the Trump image? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski This is because it has a personally rights warning isn't something that I rarely see. So when I saw that, I thought it could be a possible issue but I might just be over worrying about something. HawkAussie (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

HawkAussie, snooker images on commons are quite often like this, as - despite my atrempts- getting companies to release images so far hasn't worked. The image is properly attributed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski That does suck in a way, right looking through the rest of them, it's good to go for a GA. HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

- It's the bane of my life HawkAussie. Thank you for a prompt and hassle free GA review. Have a great day. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article title

I just fixed a link in the Tournament summary section and it's highlighted a discrepancy in the naming of the Coral Cup articles. The main snooker Tour Championship article is called Tour Championship (snooker) to distinguish it from the Tour Championship golf tournament of the same name. I wonder if this article should therefore be called 2019 Tour Championship (snooker) for the same reason and for consistency with the other articles in the Coral Cup suite. To be more specific:

• Coral Cup (snooker): when this article is created, everything that spawns from it should have "(snooker)" in the title to avoid confusion
• World Grand Prix (snooker): this generic article has "(snooker)" in title to disambiguate it from the darts event, video game, etc. – suggest that 2019 World Grand Prix should be renamed 2019 World Grand Prix (snooker) for consistency (and cf. 2019 World Grand Prix (darts))
• Players Championship (snooker): this generic article has "(snooker)" in title to disambiguate it from all the other players championships (golf/darts/curling/etc.) – similarly 2019 Players Championship (snooker) has "(snooker)" in title so this is already consistent
• Tour Championship (snooker): this generic article has "(snooker)" in title to distinguish it from the golf tournament of the same name – therefore suggest that 2019 Tour Championship should be renamed 2019 Tour Championship (snooker) for consistency
  Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not how WP:COMMONNAME or WP:PRIMARYTOPIC works, sadly. We have prior, with the UK Championship (snooker), and 1979 UK Championship etc. We don't need to disambiguate if there is no other primary topic, or like in this case, the primary topic doesn't have an article. The Golf Tour is the primary topic, but it doesn't have a yearly article. I'd be very much opposed to a move. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I can see how this works for the current article (2019 Tour Championship) as there is no other article with this name to compete with it, fair enough. But the 2019 World Grand Prix article (snooker tournament) is being treated as the primary topic for that title, even though the darts tournament (2019 World Grand Prix (darts)) is getting 6 times as many views (6,632 views in last 60 days compared with 1,154 views for the snooker article). Is it worth bringing this up or should we hope that eventually the snooker WGPs will become so popular that they will automatically become the undisputed primary topic in no time at all? Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Primary topic isn't based on view count, more on recognising what topic is more meant when using the title. There's three possible outcomes here - 1 - the snooker article is the primary topic, 2- the darts is primary, or 3- neither is primary. Without looking at the darts competition, it's hard for me to see either way, but if it is the primary topic, then it's worth putting in a requested move for the series of articles, and getting a wider range of input. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll just leave it alone for now ;) Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)