# Talk:2001 Irish Masters

This review is transcluded from Talk:2001 Irish Masters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


### Well-written
#### Overview
Link snooker on first mention in overview section.
"It" needs to be capitalized at the start of the 3rd sentence.
The 8 highest-ranked players in the world rankings were invited to play in Ireland as well as 4 wild card entries - per WP:MOS, I'm pretty sure numbers under 10 are supposed to be spelled out.


#### First round
with breaks of 61, 59 following playing errors from O'Brien to win - better grammatically as with breaks of 61 and 59 to win, following playing errors from O'Brien.
35 minutes playing tactically - better grammatically as playing tactically for 35 minutes


#### Quarter-finals
took 50 minutes to lead 4–0 - would that be better as took 50 minutes to take a 4–0 lead, or is your way a more common form of snooker terminology?
to win 6–1 and qualify - sentence is getting too long.  Change to to win 6–1. Hendry qualified Then, change Hendry to he at the beginning of the next sentence.
by 79–1 - by a score of 79–1 (or something more snookery if that's too basebally).
The next two frames after that - take out after that, redundant.
Ebdon to win the match not sure that's quite right grammatically, how about Ebdon as he won the match


#### Semi-finals
 to 531 with Williams taking - sentence is getting too long, try to 531. Williams then took
for the final by 6–3 - for the final by a score of 6–3 (or something more snookery).
He qualified for the 96th final of his professional career,[29] his seventh in the Irish Masters and defeated Williams again following the 2001 Malta Grand Prix. - unclear run-on sentence, change to It was the 96th final of his professional career and his seventh in the Irish Masters. Also, it was his second recent victory over Williams, whom he had defeated in the 2001 Malta Grand Prix.
to win 6–3 and the second spot in the final - to win 6–3, clinching the second spot in the final.


#### Finals
The two-session best-of-17 frames final between Hendry and O'Sullivan was held over two sessions on 1 April - double mention of two sessions is redundant - take out one of them and make sure the one you leave in is still linked.
competition and O'Sullivan had won their 15 previous meetings to Hendry's 14 - run-on sentence, better as competition. O'Sullivan had won 15 of their previous meetings, while Hendry had won the other 14.
break of 76,[32][34] and O'Sullivan the sixth - better grammatically as break of 76, and O'Sullivan won the sixth
Hendry's break of 76 won him frame seven after missing - I can't quite tell who missed the blue ball the way it's phrased - clarify, please.
In the last sentence of the first paragraph, put for a 9–8 victory after frame (which is what that prepositional phrase modifies).
but was disqualified for a positive drug test for traces of cannabis - but was disqualified, as he tested positive for traces of cannabis. Also, might as well go ahead and link cannabis.
He won his fourth tournament of the season following the Champions Cup, the Scottish Masters and the China Open,[33][35][38] his first in 2001,[39] and the £75,000 he won increased his season's earnings to more than £370,000 - run-on sentence. Adjust to He won his fourth tournament of the season following the Champions Cup, the Scottish Masters and the China Open,though this was his first in 2001. The £75,000 he won increased his season's earnings to more than £370,000.

had lost in his third final frame deciding Irish Masters final and his second in succession after a defeat to Doherty in the Thailand Masters - unclear, better as had lost in his third Irish Masters final decided in the final frame and his second in succession after a defeat to Doherty in the Thailand Masters


#### Century breaks
5 should be spelled out.


### References
References all look good and seem to be working! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Other than that, article looks good! Let me know when you've made these changes! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sanfranciscogiants17: Have made changes according to the points raised above. What else needs addressing? MWright96 (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
@MWright96: Looked back over it, looks good now, passing. Well done! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)