# Talk:2020 Snooker Shoot Out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_snooker_season#Points_distribution
The amounts listed here for the Shoot-Out differs from the "points distribution" section on the season calendar. Which is correct and with source? They both have the correct amount for the winner, but for example, this article lists £8,000 for the semi-finalists, but the season page lists £15,000 for the semi-finalists. Some sources cited on this article are from the start of the season, BEFORE the Shoot-Out's fund was boosted due to the new European Series.

well, the source for the season article just uses the one from pre-season. This one adds up to £170,000. There will be an official prize list on livescores when the event is live, so I wouldn't worry too much.  Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but unless my math wrong, doesn't the prize fund listed here for each round add up to £168,000, not £171,000 like the article states? 50,000 + 20,000 + (8,000 x 2) + (4,000 x 4) + (2,000 x 8) + (1,000 x 16) + (500 x 32) + (250 x 64) + 2,000 (highest break) = £168,000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.85.52 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
It probably is wrong. We'll know a bit better when the official one is listed on livescores. It's certainly more correct than what was on the main snooker season article anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems the high break prize is £5,000 not £2,000, which would add up to the total prize fund of £171,000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.85.52 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2020 Snooker Shoot Out/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 01:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
(I'll be looking to claim points for the 2020 Wikipedia:WikiCup for this review.)
Lee Vilenski I've put in a first round of comments. Happy to be challenged and discuss.

"The 2020 Snooker Shoot Out, which is also called the 2020 BetVictor Snooker Shoot Out" - maybe add why, i.e. sponsorship.
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Is there a better way of saying " additional players were selected using wildcards" - maybe something like " additional players were selected as wildcard entries"?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"The 2020 event had 128 participants from the World Snooker Tour and additional players were selected using wildcards,[5] and was organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPSA) and World Snooker." Might read better by starting a new sentence after wildcards, unless that affects the meaning.
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"additional players were selected using wildcards" - suggest updates reference(s). WST Announcement BBC Article. It would be nice to exactly know how the wildcards were chosen, and who by, but I'm not sure there is anything that explains this fully - IMO, the WST article doesn't.
not sure what you mean here. The links are the same, and there isn't a ref stating how people were chosen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The source "bbc._Snoo" is from 2019 and talks about the wildcards for that year. I've added the "wst._Rean" source (for 2020), which is what I meant to link to above, next to it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Looks like some of the references for the rules should be to the "sBNIG" reference rather than the "original rules" one.
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The Shoot Out rules state that "At least one ball must strike a cushion or enter a pocket in every stroke. Failure to do so will result in a foul." Although " if a ball does not hit a cushion on every shot, it is a foul." is not wrong, I suggest amending the article to include that a ball being pocketed can prevent a stoke being a foul. (I was going to add the WPBSA definition of a stoke to the Cue Sports Glossary, so that this more specific term could be used, but I don't understand the exception in:"A stroke is made when the striker strikes the cue-ball with the tip of the cue, except whilst addressing the cue-ball (known as feathering).")
I always thought pockets were classified as part of the cushion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The phrasing "must strike a cushion or enter a pocket" suggests to me that there is a distinction. Unfortunately the rules of snooker don't seem to define exactly what "cushions" are. Karnehm's 1981 World Snooker book has a picture that includes in the caption "Leather-covered metal pocket plates fit into the end of the cushions." As the original wording isn't wrong, I'm not going to argue that this has to change. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"All snooker award the opponent a ball in hand." I think this should probably say that following all fouls, the opponent plays the next shot from in hand.
That was supposed to say that. Changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"In the event of a draw, each player receives a shot at the blue ball from inside the D; this is known as a "blue ball shootout". The player who pot the ball with the opponent missing wins the match" May need to be expanded and reworded slightly, e.g. to specify that the blue is on its spot. Shoot Out Rule 14 covers this.
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I tweaked the line slightly. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
It seems to be common in snooker journalism and books to refer to player nationalities. However, I think some of the references to nationalities in the Tournament Summary section are superfluous.
Tbf, If I removed the nationalities, there'd be nothing to write about. There's very little to write about with just one frame. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"Mei Xiwen defeated Mike Dunn 22-12 in a frame consisting of 34 points." the intention was probably to highlight that this was a low-scoring match, but the wording feels tautological.
reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
"was organised by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPSA) and World Snooker". Does the cited source confirm this? The event branding showed WST (World Snooker Tour) rather than World Snooker. Note on the WPBSA/WST relationship is here)
Added. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
The tournament received coverage on Eurosport. Consider adding this if there's a suitable source. (this?)
Added. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
A BBC Source already utilised (this) notes that this is Holt's first ranking title after 24 years on the tour. Consider noting the time he had been a professional in the article.
Added. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
From Snooker Scene, in case any is of enough interest to add: Andrew Pagett was included as a "last minute" replacement for Graeme Dott, and beat Bingham. O'Sullivan's loss left him at 16th in the one year rankings, but he was overtaken by Zhou and Holt during the tournament "costing him a place in both the Players and Tour Championship events he won last season." Three teenage amateur players reached the last 32: Aaron Hill, Ross Bulman, and Dean Young. Zhou conceded the final, needing a snooker, with three and a half minutes left on the clock. Holt's win meant he moved to 16th place in the one-year rankings and therefore was invited to the Player's Championship. He "will almost certainly" get a place at the next Champion of Champions too.
I'll take a look a bit later. The bit about the amateurs is in the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if there is a source for it, but one of the distinguishing features of this tournament is that the audience is encouraged to be noisy.
Maybe for the main article, but I don't think it's particularly important for this article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I've corrected some obvious typos and made what I consider to be other uncontroversial minor changes.
Thanks! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
I used Earwig's Copyvio Tool, and found no issues with either of the items that showed over 5%. Article is comprehensive, neutral, and well-referenced. The logo image used is justified. I'm happy with the responses to my review comments above. Great work Lee Vilenski! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:00, 9 April 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 (reference section):  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: