Talk:1951 World Snooker Championship

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:1951 World Snooker Championship/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Alavense (talk · contribs) 07:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This is my review:

Lede

• The quarter-finals and semi-finals were held at various venues in England and the final was held - Could the second held be something like played to avoid repetition?

Background

• In 1927, the final of the first professional snooker championship was held at Camkin's Hall; Davis won the tournament by beating Tom Dennis in the final - I feel that sentence is a bit weird. If we are only referring to the final in the first half, it's quite obvious in the second that it has to be the final, isn't it?
• You could link the 1935 World Snooker Championship and the 1946 World Snooker Championship as well as the others.
• As pointed out in another review, I feel the Schedule section should go between the Background and the Tournament summary. I believe it's more logical for the reader.
• Besides, the {{abbr}} for Ref. should be Reference, not References, as there's only one per row.

• This also came up at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of performances by Josette Simon/archive1. It is a feature of Ref Heading tamplate. The FAQ at Template:Reference column heading has "Communicating to the reader that the column contains references is essential; letting them know whether to expect one or multiple references per line is not." I can change this to an abbr template if you think it's required. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I was unaware of that. It's fine, then. Alavense (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Main draw

• Instead of Source:, which feels a bit rudimentary, I would have something like The results for the main draw are shown below. Match winners are shown in bold (or whichever formula you favour) before the references.
• The reference for Pulman's withdrawal can be added after the note as well here.

Images

• Images, captions and alt text are fine.

References

Some spot-checks:

• The quarter-finals were played over 71 frames - Fine.
• John Barrie, winner of the qualifying competition - Fine.
• had been due to be married the day before the start of his match against Fred Davis, but two days before the wedding date, postponed it until later in the year as his fiancée Joan Odlin's parents wanted to have a larger-scale ceremony than originally planned - Fine.
• Davis said that, based on past experience, he expected to lose 0.5 stone (3.2 kg) of bodyweight during the match - Am I missing something? I can't find anything about this in the sources provided.

• The Herald Express source "Evenly Matched Rivals" cited has "Fred Davis reckons he will be half a stone lighter after he had played... Davis's estimate is based on past experience" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear me. I'm sorry, my bad. This one's fine as well, of course. Alavense (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Walter Donaldson and Kingsley Kennerley played each other in the championship for the fourth successive year. Donaldson had won all three of the previous encounters - Fine.
• Davis was presented with the championship trophy by BACC chairman John Bissett - Fine.
• Would it be possible to have some of The Billiard Player clippings to check them?

• Sure, I've emailled you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.

A few more spot-checks now that I have access to The Billiard Player:

• An article in The Billiard Player magazine described the match as "dour but absorbing" - fine.
• Pulman was two frames behind, 11–13, after two days, but later drew level at 18–18 and established a 26–22 lead - fine.
• He secured a place in the semi-finals at 36–31 - fine.
• From 6–6 after the first day, Davis moved into a 12–6 lead - fine.
• He achieved a winning margin at 49–39 - The Billiard Player says: "Davis, needing only one (48‍–‍36) secured it in the first frame of the morning session on the last day". Is the magazine wrong about this one or am I missing something once more?

• I checked other Newspaper sources and the magazine is wrong about that. I've removed that reference from there, and added a different one. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to question anything I've said above, BennyOnTheLoose. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

One last question for you above, BennyOnTheLoose. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think all the comments have been taken care of, haven't them, BennyOnTheLoose? Alavense (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think so, Alavense. I did have another look in newspaper sources but I didn't find anything that I felt needed adding. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It was a nice read and I think it meets the criteria (it's well-written, sources are okay, it covers the main aspects, it's both neutral and stable and images are fine and useful), so it's a pass from me. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2025 (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.