| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Shudde ( talk · contribs) 07:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll review this article. Might take a little bit of time, but I generally try and complete my review as promptly as possible. - Shudde talk 07:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I will list any comments/questions I have as I read the article over. Once I've done that I'll assess the article against the Good Article Criteria. Addressing the comments may or may not be critical to whether the article passes, and I welcome any additional questions/responses.
"The rent increase coupled with the waning interest in croquet was causing financial difficulties and in 1875 the club decided to introduce lawn tennis at its grounds to capitalize on the upcoming interest in this new sport and generate additional revenue." – maybe take a look at the grammar here
- > Done. Slightly rephrased and split into two sentences to improve readability. -- Wolbo ( talk) 15:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is no context given for the "new" sport of tennis; considering this is the inaugural tournament of what is probably the sports premier event, it may be worth adding a paragraph – maybe a few sentences – on the history of tennis up until 1875.
- > Done. Added a paragraph on the 'Origins of lawn tennis' and added a section header 'All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club' for the following section.
"It was approved at the annual meeting and the membership fee was set to two guineas to cover both sports." – make it clear you're talking about the annual club membership fee
- Just a general comment – I think in general the punctuation could be improved – specifically some sentences should be broken up with commas.
- You might want to have a look at WP:UNITS and see what can be done regarding the rules section. Obviously the rules used imperial units, but including conversions to metric would improve the article I think.
- > Done. Metric units have been added in brackets, in line with WP:UNITS --
Wolbo (
talk) 16:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Consider reducing the number of significant figures; for example I don't think it is necessary to go to the nearest centimetre. -
Shudde
talk 11:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- > Not done. It is common to describe the dimensions in metric units to the nearest centimeter. See also the other language versions of the "tennis court" article. I added a wikilink to the "tennis court" article.--
Wolbo (
talk) 11:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- How other language wikis do things is not really relevent.
WP:UNITS says "Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value" – plus it will look better! -
Shudde
talk 12:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- > Comment. WP:UNITS also says 'Use common sense in applying it.' The other wikis are not the reason for using a centimeter level of precision but they are examples of it. I would like to keep that level of precision as a) it is a relevant level and b) it is commonly used to describe the measurement of the court in metric units. The official governing body of tennis, ITF, for example mentions in their
rulebook "The court shall be a rectangle, 78 feet (23.77 m) long and, for singles matches, 27 feet (8.23 m) wide. For doubles matches, the court shall be 36 feet (10.97 m) wide." (For the height of the net they go to the millimeter level). See also
here,
here,
here and
here.--
Wolbo (
talk) 22:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to worry too much about this; it's not in the criteria obviously, but I thought I'd mention it because it would improve the article. The accuracy used depends on the purpose of including the conversion. In a rulebook you are going to want to be as specific as possible so that people can construct/agree on the size of a field, but the case here is simply for giving readers unfamiliar with imperial units a sense of the size court you are describing. They don't need/want to know a high degree of accuracy. It just makes it easier to read, and a bit more presentable, and doesn't cost anything to do it. We can agree to disagree on this. - Shudde talk 10:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- > Comment. WP:UNITS also says 'Use common sense in applying it.' The other wikis are not the reason for using a centimeter level of precision but they are examples of it. I would like to keep that level of precision as a) it is a relevant level and b) it is commonly used to describe the measurement of the court in metric units. The official governing body of tennis, ITF, for example mentions in their
rulebook "The court shall be a rectangle, 78 feet (23.77 m) long and, for singles matches, 27 feet (8.23 m) wide. For doubles matches, the court shall be 36 feet (10.97 m) wide." (For the height of the net they go to the millimeter level). See also
here,
here,
here and
here.--
Wolbo (
talk) 22:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- How other language wikis do things is not really relevent.
WP:UNITS says "Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value" – plus it will look better! -
Shudde
talk 12:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- > Not done. It is common to describe the dimensions in metric units to the nearest centimeter. See also the other language versions of the "tennis court" article. I added a wikilink to the "tennis court" article.--
Wolbo (
talk) 11:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Consider reducing the number of significant figures; for example I don't think it is necessary to go to the nearest centimetre. -
Shudde
talk 11:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
"The first player to win six games wins the set with 'sudden death' occurring at five games all except for the final" – this is the first use of the term "set" – it would be good to wiki-link it to an explanatory article if possible.
- "The first public announcement of the tournament was published on 9 June 1877 in the country and field sports magazine "The Field":" as it is a quote, a reference should be added immediately after the colon.
- > Done. Added reference. -- Wolbo ( talk) 15:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
" open to all amateurs[c]," – move footnote to after punctuation
Might be good to incorporate footnote [d] into the main text – seems quite important and interesting, rather than something explanatory that belongs in a footnote.
- > Done. Moved the first sentence of the footnote to the main text and left the second sentence ("The cup is on display in the Wimbledon Lawn Tennis Museum.") as a footnote. -- Wolbo ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
"Gillson had the honorable " – you should use British rather than American English for this article
" The posts, nets and balls for" – you wiki-link balls here, should probably be wiki-linked earlier instead
- > Done. Moved wikilink to first appearance of term (Rules section). -- Wolbo ( talk) 19:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
" F.N. Langham, a Cambridge tennis blue, was given a walkover in the first round when C.F. Buller, an Etonian and well-known rackets player, did not appear on Monday." – might want to link tennis blue and Etonian if possible
The paragraph in Tournament could probably be split up, this would make it a little easier to read
You should find a reference for footnote [f]
- > Done. Reference added
"on a dead and slippery court" – you may want to either explain, or wiki-link "dead" in this context as I believe it is jargon
- > Done. Added footnote to the term ´dead´. The word ´slippery'in this context is probably self-explanatory.-- Wolbo ( talk) 11:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
"seating to 30 people.[13] [g]" – space
Maybe include footnote [g] in the main text; this is an interesting fact.
- > Done. I think both options are fine but no problem changing it to main text. -- Wolbo ( talk) 20:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
With regards to the wiki-linking in the tournament section; wiki-link something in the first instance and then not again. Also with players names, use their full name on first instance, and then refer to them by only their surname afterwards (unless they could be confused with others of the same name).
- > As far as I'm aware the tournament section complies with this guideline. --
Wolbo (
talk) 21:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- "C.G. Heathcote" -> Heathcote in the second paragraph; "William Marshall" is wiki-linked in the second not first instance
- > Done.
- "C.G. Heathcote" -> Heathcote in the second paragraph; "William Marshall" is wiki-linked in the second not first instance
- "Gore, the volleyer, had beaten the baseliner, at a time when volleying was considered by some to be unsporting." – reword this – it's full of jargon
- > Done. Reworded volleyer > volley specialist and baseliner > baseline player. Added wikilink to 'volley'.
Please clear up your formatting regarding blockquotes – see MOS:QUOTE – I'm mainly thinking of the use of quotation marks
- "Gore's victory was seen as a win of the rackets style of play over the [real] tennis style and of the volleyer over the baseline player.[2] Gore was a player with an aptitude for many games, he had a long reach and a strong and flexible wrist. His volleying style was novel at the time, a forceful shot instead of merely a pat back over the net. His volleying game was also successful because the height of the net at the post, 5 ft compared to the current 3 ft 6 in, made it difficult for his opponents to pass him by driving the ball down the line." – units, and also see above regarding jargon
- > Done. Metric units have been added. Reworded volleyer > volley player and added 'offensive' and 'defensive' to clarify distinction between the two styles of play. --
Wolbo (
talk) 20:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but for me the addition of offensive and defensive has not really clarified it. If the only difference is that one is offensive and one defensive then why use the terms volley and baseline to describe the play? See my suggestion above. I think this will make the article much much more accessible. - Shudde talk 11:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- "The length of the service court was reduced from 26 feet to 22 feet and the height of the net was reduced to 4 feet 9 inches at the posts and 3 feet at the centre." – units
- > Done. Metric units have been added in brackets, in line with WP:UNITS -- Wolbo ( talk) 17:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
In the lead you mention that there were 22 competitors, but this isn't mentioned in the main text; you also make no mention of the profit in the main text
- I think the lead could be expanded a little, especially regarding the background to the tournament.
- > Done. Lead has been expanded with a sentence on the rules, the start date of the tournament has been added as well as the words 'entry fee'. -- Wolbo ( talk) 19:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Overall I enjoyed reading the article. I'm familiar with tennis, and do watch it occasionally. However I found the article did assume a little bit more knowledge of the game than it should – especially regarding jargon. The only other major criticism is that it left me wanting to know a little bit more about the development of tennis before the tournament, and also how important the inaugural tournament was to it's growth in the future. I checked the images, and did a few spot checks on the references which all checked out. As far as criteria goes, it comfortably passes them all; with some small issues with criteria 1a, and 3a. I'm going to place the article on hold. I'll check back here regularly, but if you need an urgent reply, then post a message on my talk page. - Shudde talk 11:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A couple of other things I picked up going through the article again:
- "Gore, the volley specialist, had beaten the baseline player, at a time when volleying was considered by some to be unsporting." – this needs to be referenced – maybe remove "some" and be more specific – e.g. "according to XYZ volleying was unsporting"
Only a few things left to fix. The main ones are the background on the "new" sports of tennis (Criteria 3a), and the lead (criteria 1b). The other things would be good if they were fixed, but they are not necessary for meeting the criteria. - Shudde talk 11:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've made a few changes, mainly to the lead and one sentence that I thought was unclear. Review them, and revert/change them if you're unhappy with them. Hopefully they help. I've left a couple more comments above but they are not required for the article to pass; you might want to consider them though. Happy to pass – sorry about the pedantic review – great work. - Shudde talk 10:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Shudde ( talk · contribs) 07:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll review this article. Might take a little bit of time, but I generally try and complete my review as promptly as possible. - Shudde talk 07:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I will list any comments/questions I have as I read the article over. Once I've done that I'll assess the article against the Good Article Criteria. Addressing the comments may or may not be critical to whether the article passes, and I welcome any additional questions/responses.
"The rent increase coupled with the waning interest in croquet was causing financial difficulties and in 1875 the club decided to introduce lawn tennis at its grounds to capitalize on the upcoming interest in this new sport and generate additional revenue." – maybe take a look at the grammar here
- > Done. Slightly rephrased and split into two sentences to improve readability. -- Wolbo ( talk) 15:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is no context given for the "new" sport of tennis; considering this is the inaugural tournament of what is probably the sports premier event, it may be worth adding a paragraph – maybe a few sentences – on the history of tennis up until 1875.
- > Done. Added a paragraph on the 'Origins of lawn tennis' and added a section header 'All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club' for the following section.
"It was approved at the annual meeting and the membership fee was set to two guineas to cover both sports." – make it clear you're talking about the annual club membership fee
- Just a general comment – I think in general the punctuation could be improved – specifically some sentences should be broken up with commas.
- You might want to have a look at WP:UNITS and see what can be done regarding the rules section. Obviously the rules used imperial units, but including conversions to metric would improve the article I think.
- > Done. Metric units have been added in brackets, in line with WP:UNITS --
Wolbo (
talk) 16:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Consider reducing the number of significant figures; for example I don't think it is necessary to go to the nearest centimetre. -
Shudde
talk 11:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- > Not done. It is common to describe the dimensions in metric units to the nearest centimeter. See also the other language versions of the "tennis court" article. I added a wikilink to the "tennis court" article.--
Wolbo (
talk) 11:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- How other language wikis do things is not really relevent.
WP:UNITS says "Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value" – plus it will look better! -
Shudde
talk 12:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- > Comment. WP:UNITS also says 'Use common sense in applying it.' The other wikis are not the reason for using a centimeter level of precision but they are examples of it. I would like to keep that level of precision as a) it is a relevant level and b) it is commonly used to describe the measurement of the court in metric units. The official governing body of tennis, ITF, for example mentions in their
rulebook "The court shall be a rectangle, 78 feet (23.77 m) long and, for singles matches, 27 feet (8.23 m) wide. For doubles matches, the court shall be 36 feet (10.97 m) wide." (For the height of the net they go to the millimeter level). See also
here,
here,
here and
here.--
Wolbo (
talk) 22:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not going to worry too much about this; it's not in the criteria obviously, but I thought I'd mention it because it would improve the article. The accuracy used depends on the purpose of including the conversion. In a rulebook you are going to want to be as specific as possible so that people can construct/agree on the size of a field, but the case here is simply for giving readers unfamiliar with imperial units a sense of the size court you are describing. They don't need/want to know a high degree of accuracy. It just makes it easier to read, and a bit more presentable, and doesn't cost anything to do it. We can agree to disagree on this. - Shudde talk 10:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- > Comment. WP:UNITS also says 'Use common sense in applying it.' The other wikis are not the reason for using a centimeter level of precision but they are examples of it. I would like to keep that level of precision as a) it is a relevant level and b) it is commonly used to describe the measurement of the court in metric units. The official governing body of tennis, ITF, for example mentions in their
rulebook "The court shall be a rectangle, 78 feet (23.77 m) long and, for singles matches, 27 feet (8.23 m) wide. For doubles matches, the court shall be 36 feet (10.97 m) wide." (For the height of the net they go to the millimeter level). See also
here,
here,
here and
here.--
Wolbo (
talk) 22:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- How other language wikis do things is not really relevent.
WP:UNITS says "Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value" – plus it will look better! -
Shudde
talk 12:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- > Not done. It is common to describe the dimensions in metric units to the nearest centimeter. See also the other language versions of the "tennis court" article. I added a wikilink to the "tennis court" article.--
Wolbo (
talk) 11:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Consider reducing the number of significant figures; for example I don't think it is necessary to go to the nearest centimetre. -
Shudde
talk 11:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
"The first player to win six games wins the set with 'sudden death' occurring at five games all except for the final" – this is the first use of the term "set" – it would be good to wiki-link it to an explanatory article if possible.
- "The first public announcement of the tournament was published on 9 June 1877 in the country and field sports magazine "The Field":" as it is a quote, a reference should be added immediately after the colon.
- > Done. Added reference. -- Wolbo ( talk) 15:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
" open to all amateurs[c]," – move footnote to after punctuation
Might be good to incorporate footnote [d] into the main text – seems quite important and interesting, rather than something explanatory that belongs in a footnote.
- > Done. Moved the first sentence of the footnote to the main text and left the second sentence ("The cup is on display in the Wimbledon Lawn Tennis Museum.") as a footnote. -- Wolbo ( talk) 14:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
"Gillson had the honorable " – you should use British rather than American English for this article
" The posts, nets and balls for" – you wiki-link balls here, should probably be wiki-linked earlier instead
- > Done. Moved wikilink to first appearance of term (Rules section). -- Wolbo ( talk) 19:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
" F.N. Langham, a Cambridge tennis blue, was given a walkover in the first round when C.F. Buller, an Etonian and well-known rackets player, did not appear on Monday." – might want to link tennis blue and Etonian if possible
The paragraph in Tournament could probably be split up, this would make it a little easier to read
You should find a reference for footnote [f]
- > Done. Reference added
"on a dead and slippery court" – you may want to either explain, or wiki-link "dead" in this context as I believe it is jargon
- > Done. Added footnote to the term ´dead´. The word ´slippery'in this context is probably self-explanatory.-- Wolbo ( talk) 11:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
"seating to 30 people.[13] [g]" – space
Maybe include footnote [g] in the main text; this is an interesting fact.
- > Done. I think both options are fine but no problem changing it to main text. -- Wolbo ( talk) 20:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
With regards to the wiki-linking in the tournament section; wiki-link something in the first instance and then not again. Also with players names, use their full name on first instance, and then refer to them by only their surname afterwards (unless they could be confused with others of the same name).
- > As far as I'm aware the tournament section complies with this guideline. --
Wolbo (
talk) 21:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- "C.G. Heathcote" -> Heathcote in the second paragraph; "William Marshall" is wiki-linked in the second not first instance
- > Done.
- "C.G. Heathcote" -> Heathcote in the second paragraph; "William Marshall" is wiki-linked in the second not first instance
- "Gore, the volleyer, had beaten the baseliner, at a time when volleying was considered by some to be unsporting." – reword this – it's full of jargon
- > Done. Reworded volleyer > volley specialist and baseliner > baseline player. Added wikilink to 'volley'.
Please clear up your formatting regarding blockquotes – see MOS:QUOTE – I'm mainly thinking of the use of quotation marks
- "Gore's victory was seen as a win of the rackets style of play over the [real] tennis style and of the volleyer over the baseline player.[2] Gore was a player with an aptitude for many games, he had a long reach and a strong and flexible wrist. His volleying style was novel at the time, a forceful shot instead of merely a pat back over the net. His volleying game was also successful because the height of the net at the post, 5 ft compared to the current 3 ft 6 in, made it difficult for his opponents to pass him by driving the ball down the line." – units, and also see above regarding jargon
- > Done. Metric units have been added. Reworded volleyer > volley player and added 'offensive' and 'defensive' to clarify distinction between the two styles of play. --
Wolbo (
talk) 20:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but for me the addition of offensive and defensive has not really clarified it. If the only difference is that one is offensive and one defensive then why use the terms volley and baseline to describe the play? See my suggestion above. I think this will make the article much much more accessible. - Shudde talk 11:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- "The length of the service court was reduced from 26 feet to 22 feet and the height of the net was reduced to 4 feet 9 inches at the posts and 3 feet at the centre." – units
- > Done. Metric units have been added in brackets, in line with WP:UNITS -- Wolbo ( talk) 17:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
In the lead you mention that there were 22 competitors, but this isn't mentioned in the main text; you also make no mention of the profit in the main text
- I think the lead could be expanded a little, especially regarding the background to the tournament.
- > Done. Lead has been expanded with a sentence on the rules, the start date of the tournament has been added as well as the words 'entry fee'. -- Wolbo ( talk) 19:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Overall I enjoyed reading the article. I'm familiar with tennis, and do watch it occasionally. However I found the article did assume a little bit more knowledge of the game than it should – especially regarding jargon. The only other major criticism is that it left me wanting to know a little bit more about the development of tennis before the tournament, and also how important the inaugural tournament was to it's growth in the future. I checked the images, and did a few spot checks on the references which all checked out. As far as criteria goes, it comfortably passes them all; with some small issues with criteria 1a, and 3a. I'm going to place the article on hold. I'll check back here regularly, but if you need an urgent reply, then post a message on my talk page. - Shudde talk 11:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A couple of other things I picked up going through the article again:
- "Gore, the volley specialist, had beaten the baseline player, at a time when volleying was considered by some to be unsporting." – this needs to be referenced – maybe remove "some" and be more specific – e.g. "according to XYZ volleying was unsporting"
Only a few things left to fix. The main ones are the background on the "new" sports of tennis (Criteria 3a), and the lead (criteria 1b). The other things would be good if they were fixed, but they are not necessary for meeting the criteria. - Shudde talk 11:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've made a few changes, mainly to the lead and one sentence that I thought was unclear. Review them, and revert/change them if you're unhappy with them. Hopefully they help. I've left a couple more comments above but they are not required for the article to pass; you might want to consider them though. Happy to pass – sorry about the pedantic review – great work. - Shudde talk 10:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)