Talk:2008 Tennis Masters Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 2008 Tennis Masters Cup was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
January 28, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Tennis (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Cuevas and Horna are in[edit]

Just to clarify because the source is in Spanish. Basically they are saying that due to the results registered in the US Open, they are now qualified to the Masters Cup. I think they imply that it is now mathematically not possible for them to fall off the top 20. --Scuac (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone decided to just remove this information. I restored it, you should discuss things here before removing something. The reasoning for the delete was that just because it's not in the ATP website, its not real. I provided a real source, with an interview to the player where he says that he is very happy that he will be attending the Masters Cup, his words. --Scuac (talk) 13:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not contesting the reality of the source, and the fact Cuevas speaks about the TMC in the interview - I'm only saying that it is the only existing source (at least the only one I found) saying Cuevas/Horna are qualified, whereas there are several other sources, inlcuding the ATP website (here) and the TMC website (here) that say nothing of their qualification. It is a situation of conflicting sources, and the question is : which one should we believe ? I fully understand what's said in the Uruguyan piece, and it seems very serious, but on the other hand the ATP and the TMC website are the official sources for the qualifications. I personally think it'd be safer to rely on several official sources, than on one single article. --Oxford St. (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the ATP and TMC websites are more important sources in this matter. I disagree that the absence of mention in them means they are not qualified, so I don't see any conflicting sources. A conflicting source would be one that indicates that they are not qualified, or shows other 8 teams qualified (implicitly negating this source), or discredits or questions this source. I just finished reading Wikipedia guidelines on Reliable Sources and Verifiability, so to comply with this I will add an additional source in English. --Scuac (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/murray_qualifies.asp is from the official site dated September 9 and says "Jonathan Erlich and Andy Ram became the third team to qualify for the circuit finale". Erlich and Ram are among the 3 qualified teams listed at http://www.masters-cup.com/2/players/doubles/default.asp. Cuevas and Horna are not there. I see this as the official site saying they were not qualified on September 9. The two unofficial article sources claiming they are qualified are both dated September 5 so we have a contradiction. Either the claim that they are qualified should be removed or the article should mention the contradiction. My own original research says they appear unlikely to be qualified based on available points in 13 remaining tournaments at http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/tournaments/fullcalendar/ (it seems likely they will qualify later but that's another matter). PrimeHunter (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added the contradiction.[1] I wouldn't object if the mention of Cuevas and Horna was removed instead. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the article ![edit]

I have added a good deal of text, pics, and references, reviewing the qualifications of each player and team, and some lines about Nadal and Erlich's withdrawals. When the tournament will start, I'll start a Review section for the singles and the doubles, written in the same fashion as the Day by day accounts of the Grand Slam articles of this year. The goal is to bring the article to GA, and, why not, FA status after it is finished (my reference being FA sport articles like 2005 United States Grand Prix or 2008 Orange Bowl).

About the pictures: Wikipedia Commons is not full with 2008 pictures of tennis players, and there are even less tennis doubles pictures available – and I realize that the del Potro and Nestor pics date from 2007, but it's better than nothing. It is probably foolish to expect pictures from the actual tournament will pop up, considering there are none for the previous editions, but if new photos (of del Potro, Murray, Tsonga, Zimonjic, the Bryans & al.) could be uploaded, it would probably be a valuable addition for the article.

--Oxford St. (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It is very good text, but I don't know why put pictures? What that pictures have with the 2008 Tennis Masters Cup? --Göran S (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the current pictures are only there to present the main players - ideally the complete article will have more pictures of the actual tournament in Shanghai (if we can find some).--Oxford St. (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A quality body of prose for a year-end tournament, quite a turn up...and I think old photos are okay (maybe even preferable if of a better quality) in any sort of qualification/background section. Do the ATP now archive their links? I remember having problems accessing old stories a while back.

I would like to do something similar (elevating to GA or FA) with 2008 U.S. Open (tennis) article at some point; I realize it has its problems, but the (re)sources are there. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added another story in the Build-up section about the groupings, to talk about the players' past matchups, and the potential expectations for the round robin matches. The text is only about the singles right now, but I'll add the same thing for the doubles later – as for the ATP archives, I don't know how it worked before, but the news archives seem to be working quite well right now. --Oxford St. (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (added the doubles piece --Oxford St. (talk) 22:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC))
It must have been the WTA site then, or I'm imagining it, because I've just noticed the news archive, which goes back years, on the ATP site. Keep up the good work.. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sunday: I've added another section about the singles alternates (I'm not sure who are the doubles alternates yet), and I have started the Competition/Day by day section, which I intend to separate, like the individual draw pages in two sections: Round robin and Finals. The trick now is to find pictures of the actual tournament - these are the first I spotted on Flickr, but only one or two photos could be used, and you frankly can't see the players (and of course the author would have to agree to relicensing). --Oxford St. (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The event is over. I have added some lines about the doubles alternates, wrote a longer lead, and completed the day by day section - I have contacted a Flickr user who might have some pictures of the final (singles and doubles) to add. I am going to wait for some days to try and improve the article (and wait to see if some other users want to modify something), check if it fills the GA/FA requirements, and then I'll probably submit it to the Peer Review. Any input on how to improve the page is more than welcome. --Oxford St. (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Things needing clarification[edit]

These are things that I will put in to be clarified while I make some copy-edits. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Let me propose some clarifications: --Oxford St. (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

  • "He then succeeded to four-time winner, two-time defending champion, and World No. 2 Roger Federer, defeated in the round robin stage of the event, and absent of the tournament's final for the first time since 2002." This sentence does not make any sense. "Succeeded" is not the right word here, and too many ideas are crammed into one sentence.
    Changed to "Four-time winner, two-time defending champion Roger Federer was defeated in the round robin stage of the event for the first time in seven consecutive appearances."
  • "Nestor was defending his previous year's title" Which title?
    Changed to "Nestor successfully defended his 2007 Tennis Masters Cup title with new partner Zimonjic, while the other defending champion, Mark Knowles, lost in the round robin, with Mahesh Bhupathi."'
    • Add "his" before "new partner".
      Done that.--Oxford St. (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "Places are awarded to the" I don't think that "places" is the right word here.
    Changed to "Spots"
  • "within the Top 20" Define what "Top 20" means.
    Changed to "...for Grand Slam champions who finish within the Top 20 players or teams of the ATP Race rankings."
  • "He broke Roger Federer's streak in Wimbledon" How long was the streak?
    Changed to "He broke Roger Federer's streak of five consecutive titles in Wimbledon."
  • "Murray reached his first quarterfinals in a major at his home tournament of Wimbledon (lost to Nadal)" What is a "home tournament"?
    I didn't think this term could be problematic. Murray is from the UK, and Wimbledon is a tournament of the UK. "Home tournament" is sometimes used (see "Federer struggles in home tournament" or "...it is even more surprising that the Scot does not favour his ‘home’ tournament"). If it is really problematic we could cut it to "Murray reached his first quarterfinals in a major at the Wimbledon Championships".
    • We have to make this article accessible for those who don't know much about competitive tennis (or tennis in general), that's why I am asking for clarification. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      Changed to "Murray reached his first quarterfinals in a major at the Wimbledon Championships".--Oxford St. (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "Murray capped his Grand Slam season with his first final appearance in a major" Needs rearranging, right now that looks like an oxymoron. That whole sentence crams too much information into one sentence.
    Changed to "Murray capped his season in majors with his first Grand Slam final"
  • "The last three qualifiers, who locked their spots during the final event before the year-end championships, in Paris," What happened in Paris?
    I don't really see a problem here. The detail of what happened in Paris comes right after. "Roddick [...] clinch[ed] the qualification when he reached the quarterfinals of the Paris Masters", "Del Potro's qualification came during the Paris Masters, when Tsonga defeated other Masters Cup hopeful James Blake, the only other contender for del Potro's place, in the semifinals." and Tsonga [...] earned his Tennis Masters Cup qualification with his second career title (his first Masters Series shield) at the Paris Masters (def. Nalbandian)." Perhaps the problem comes from the fact I have written Paris instead of clearly saying Paris Masters, in which case we could change to "...during the final event before the year-end championships, at the Paris Masters."
  • "The Bryan brothers qualified for their sixth straight Tennis Masters Cup appearance (withdrew in 2007), while Nestor qualified for the tenth time, the first with another partner that Mark Knowles, and Zimonjic qualified for the third time." I think this is missing info.
    Do you mean there should be more info about his nine previous appearances with Knowles ?--Oxford St. (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • No, I meant that the sentence is missing a word after "that Mark Knowles"—what did he do? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
      Ah, I see the problem. I meant "than Mark Knowles". Corrected. --Oxford St. (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "started their regular partnership by reaching the Australian Open quarterfinals (lost to Clement/Llodra)," How does reaching the quarterfinals "start a regualar partnership"?
    Yes, that wasn't really clear. I just wanted to say this result was their first big one after they decided to compete together, after partnering several times occasionally. Changed to "Daniel Nestor and Nenad Zimonjic, who had previously partnered for four events in 2007, started their first full season together reaching the Australian Open quarterfinals (lost to Clement/Llodra).--Oxford St. (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you put in more descriptive image captions than just the name of the pictured tennis player?
    Done --Oxford St. (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Nadal cited the Davis Cup final necessary preparation as another reason to withdraw from the event, " This doesn't make sense. Was the Davis Cup necessary preparation or another reason to withdraw?
    Would it be more clear as "Nadal cited the Davis Cup preparation as another reason to withdraw from the event" ? --Oxford St. (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "Simon was ranked eighth in the ATP Race when upon his entrance into the Paris Masters thanks to his final in Madrid and his semifinal at the Grand Prix de Tennis de Lyon, where he lost to eventual champion Robin Soderling,[6] but was knocked out of the Top Eight when he lost to Andy Roddick in the third round,[7] and Tsonga qualified by winning the title." Be more clear about at which competition he lost to whom.
    Is it clearer as "Simon was ranked eighth in the ATP Race entering the Paris Masters, thanks to his final in Madrid (lost to Murray) and his semifinal at the Grand Prix de Tennis de Lyon (lost to eventual champion Soderling), but was knocked out of the Top Eight of the ATP Race when he lost to Andy Roddick in the third round of Paris, and Tsonga qualified by winning the title."
  • "Hoping that Erlich would be fit to play the year-end event, Ram had continued to compete with different players. During that period," What time period?
    Changed to "Ram had continued to compete with different players between September and the last ATP Tour event before the Masters Cup."--Oxford St. (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "The substitutes for the doubles event, directly ranked after the last qualifiers, Fyrstenberg and Matkowski, in the ninth position of the ATP Doubles Race, were Marcelo Melo and Andre Sa from Brazil." This sentence is very confusing. What are Fyrstenberg and Matkowski?
    Changed to "The substitutes for the doubles event, ranked in the ninth position of the ATP Doubles Race, directly after Fyrstenberg and Matkowski, were Marcelo Melo and Andre Sa from Brazil."--Oxford St. (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "in presence of ATP No. 4 Andy Murray" What does "in presence" mean?
    Changed to "in attendance of..." --Oxford St. (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

FA status[edit]

One thing that will need to change is that the references will need to be in one of the {{citation}} formats, either {{citation}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}}, etc.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 01:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, I see that they are, just not formatted correctly.

1. {{cite news}} is for newspapers, {{cite web}} is for websites.
2. "Author" refers to an actual person, not the website that it comes from, that would fill the "work" category.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 03:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 04:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to help out as much as I can here (given usual time constraints). One thing that strikes me, and will strike the people at FAC, is that all references are more of less from the ATP.com. While it is in my view a reliable source, it still gives the article an aura of being the "official" version of the tournament. There should be tons of references from third-party sources that can, and should, substitute and supplement the current references.
About citations templates, the only thing that should not be mixed is the "citation" template and the "cite xxx" template. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 19:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A Query From rst20xx[edit]

Firstly, let me say that I am very impressed with this article you've written here, and I think it deserves to become our first tournament GA/FA. Best of luck with that.

But I feel that there's something that needs to be addressed here, namely, how content is split between a tournament article and its event articles (so in this case, between 2008 Tennis Masters Cup and 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Singles/2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Doubles). Precedent seems consistently to be to put all description of proceedings in the tournament article, and then leave the event articles as just seedings/draws. As a result, the event articles seem to me to be more like Lists at the moment. Do you think that, with a little bit of summary added to the event articles, we could get them to FL status? And have them refer to the tournament article via a hat-tip, for a full description of proceedings - rst20xx (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your idea got me thinking. Writing summaries in individual draw pages to bring them to FL seems possible, and a good idea, but perhaps is this the moment to really think about splitting the main article. Indeed, when editing 2008 Tennis Masters Cup, I keep seeing the message "This page is 115 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size", the 2008 Tennis Masters Cup article is among the 1000 longest articles on Wikipedia, and the idea of splitting long main articles of tennis events has been raised in the 2008 US Open peer review. I really like this 2008 Tennis Masters Cup article as it is, but perhaps it would better, to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, to move the day by day summaries into the individual draw pages, and write new, shorter summaries for the main article, to keep it under 90/100 kilobytes.
I'm not particularly convinced with my own proposal, because I fear it might not look good to have a somewhat detailed article in the "Qualification" and "Build-up" sections, and then a summary for a "Competition" section, but if we could work that out, it would solve the size problem for the main article, give enough substance to the individual draw pages to bring them to FL, or even perhaps FA, and create, should this article ever reach GA or FA, a good template for future tennis tournaments we would like to bring to GA/FA.
So, is the size of this article really a problem, or, would the size of a Grand Slam article with detailed day by day text for men's singles, women's singles, men's doubles, women's doubles, mixed doubles, boys' singles, boys' doubles, girls' singles, girls' doubles, senior events, and wheelchair events be a problem ? What do you think ? Of course, I'm going with the idea that all tennis tournaments article should follow the same format, whether they are Grand Slam events, year-end championships, or Masters 1000, but perhaps they shouldn't. --Oxford St. (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, here's what I would do if I was given complete control. I find it odd that you'd put the day-by-day stuff into the sub-articles, but leave the qualification and build-up stuff in the main. What I would do is put the lot into the sub-articles, and then summarise the lot in the main. This way, each of the 3 articles have consistent levels of detail within themselves, and hopefully none of the articles will be too long.
I'm not sure what doing this would do, however, to the listiness of the sub-articles. I suspect in this case they would in fact become articles, as the draws are very short and so the text would come to dominate. But with for example 2008 US Open - Men's Singles, the draw is much longer, so it could go either way, and in fact there's also a real risk that the new sub-article would be too long. The only football comparison I could find is 1930 FIFA World Cup - rst20xx (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this article's size is okay. Pushing it, but okay. I think we ought to be pragmatic* and try to keep information in the main if possible. In the case of Grand Slams, I would probably say that details should be spread out to the sub-articles, because there's so much more to cover - but only when/if the main article gets too big. They could be unique in this regard, because of their greater size, and it could be made clear that in addition to a summary on the main, there is more information in the sub-articles. As far as possible, we should try to give readers a choice between listed and quantitative information, and prose-based and qualitative information—I think this is the thinking behind having a discography article in addition to the main biography (which contains virtually the same information) on music artist articles—and for this reason the prose-based information should all be in one place, bar exceptional cases, such as the Grand Slams. I should probably add that I am considering adding fuller tournament summaries to the Masters 1000/some Premier event articles for the 2009 season.
*By this, I mean that I don't want to template the structure. I don't like the application of templates on other sports articles because it discourages editors from attempting something innovative, and assumes the reader needs a set structure to understand. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I see. My point was that, should this article get to GA/FA, it would be impossible to use it as an example for Grand Slam articles - but I guess you're right, and different formats for different articles, different types of tournaments would be better. And anyway the point that the Grand Slam draws are already over 50kb, and would be well over the 100kb mark should there be text added to them is right, and simply splitting in that way can't be a good solution. I guess this article can stay as is it, and, to get back to Rst20xx's original query, we could still add some text to the draw pages to push them to FL - your input on how do it, and that of User:Dabomb87, who copy-edits the article, and is active on the Featured Lists page, would be welcome. (I should also add, at the attention of User:Yohan euan o4, that I believe there are many tennis events worthy of a GA/FA push - the Slams, the Masters 1000 and the mandatory Premier events, but also the Davis Cup/Fed Cup, which can be written throughout the year, and the 2009 ATP World Tour/2009 WTA Tour pages, which could be large summaries of the year, in the style of what was attempted this year in the early months of 2008 ATP Tour).--Oxford St. (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think what Yohan euan o4 says makes a lot of sense - different tourneys merit different approaches. Related question though - should draw pages be considered lists instead of articles? Because if this is generally the case, then there is a LOT of class assessment that can be done... rst20xx (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if they should be considered lists. They are, in a way, lists of results. Do you any know any sports results pages which resemble tennis draws ? --Oxford St. (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Erm. No. lol. Best comparisons I can give are things like UEFA Euro 2008 Group A and UEFA Euro 2008 knockout stage, but I think football articles of this type are generally unassessed, so WP:FOOTY hasn't really made a decision either. Anyway, I would say that they should be considered lists, I really don't see them growing into standard articles - rst20xx (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that, in most cases, they would be lists, even if some adjustments need to be made for bigger events (although I can see problem here). They are lists in practice anyway—on most occasions that I've seen information being added to an event, it's to the main article (this is how I do it anyhow). This being the case, I don't think it is for three editors to make the decision that they aren't. I think it benefits the reader to know where any extra information will show up (as standard), and means less work for editors, because otherwise there's the potential (if they aren't classed as lists), for a lot of information to be duplicated. (Sorry about all the parentheses). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Dabomb87 says on his talk page we should split the article, Yohan euan o4 thinks we shouldn't though the article is indeed quite long, Rst20xx would favor a reorganization, but highlights the fact that subarticles would be themselves too long - I guess the best thing would be to wait for the GA review, or the FA review, and see what is advised from editors outside the Tennis Project. --Oxford St. (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

What is the status of this? Is the article going to be split off? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Not right now. I'll put the article to Peer Review after it passes GA (it if does), and we'll see what to do then. --Oxford St. (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 Tennis Masters Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be reviewing this. Before I go further, congratulations on producing such an attractive and thorough article so soon after the event.

I'll follow my usual approach of dealing with "high-level" issues like coverage and structure before the nitty-gritty, and leave the lead until any issues wiht the main content have been resolved. --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What should go in what article[edit]

I see some discussion at Talk:2008 Tennis Masters Cup of which details should go in which articles, the other articles concerned being 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Singles and 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Doubles. I do not regard the "What should go in what article" debate as evidence of an edit war, since the tone of all participants is reasonable and friendly, and they all concerned with how best to present the subject than with POV-pushing (PS don't get wound up about this, it simply deals with the "no edit war" item in the GA checklist). --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

However looking at the size of 2008 Tennis Masters Cup I think that, per WP:SUMMARY, 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Singles and 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Doubles should do a lot of the heavy lifting instead of being bare results tables. That will enable this article to deal with additional matters like: how the venue was selected (is it as murky a process as the selection of sites for Olympic Games?); whether the venue already existed, had a major upgrade for the event or was specifically built for the event; and why the event was held in China when China had already got the 2008 Olympics; and any issues that came up with the running of the event (e.g. scheduling problems, for example to fit in with US TV schedules, which is a perennial issue at the US Open and IIRC the Australian). --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I suggest a suitable structure for both 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Singles and 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Doubles would be:

  • Rules for selecting participants, especially any changes since the 2007 cycle. If the rules and any changes for 2008 are identical for sigles and doubles, then they should mainly be covered in 2008 Tennis Masters Cup, and mentioned more briefly in 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Singles and 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Doubles. BTW should mention that these end-of season events are for men - are there any for women, and is there one for mixed doubles?
  • Structure of tournament - round-robin and knock-out stages. If you can find reliable sources, comparison with the structure of the finals stage of the FIFA World Cup or similar events in other sports would be good. Once gain, if the structure is the same for singles and doubles, the details should be in 2008 Tennis Masters Cup.
  • How the participants qualified, including the impact of withdrawals. Preferably a little briefer than at present.
  • Draw and seeding.
  • Results table.
  • Any significant consequences, e.g. major changes in world rankings as a result of the tournament
  • Summaries of matches, preferably a little briefer than here. Including any scheduling, fitness, personal or other relevant off-court issues. Also comment on any "revenge matches", or episodes in on-going rivalries or other "spice it up" factors. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd build up 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Singles and 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Doubles as much as possible before starting to reduce / remove coverage in 2008 Tennis Masters Cup. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm asking a lot, and I'm willing to be fairly patient. In the upside, you already have very nearly enough material for 3 GAs, provided the references stand up. Hopefully you can get 3 GAs for the price of 1 around the end of Jan 2009. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment - are you sure that 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Singles and 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Doubles are better off as articles, and not lists? Okay, as of my writing this (i.e. before being built up) they're both quite short, so they could quite reasonably go either way, but you also need to bear in mind that something of a precedent is going to be set here for other tennis draw pages, and I'm not convinced that something like 2008 US Open - Men's Singles could ever be considered an article and not a list. Maybe you disagree though - either way, I'd like to hear your opinion, and this is the issue we were discussing above. Is it possible to build the pair up but still have them considered lists? Or maybe we should have different procedures for different tournaments? - rst20xx (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Those are very fair questions.
In 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Singles and 2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Doubles I think the draws are small enough for the same article to accommodate both the text and the tables. Do you think there is any risk that either of the Masters tournaments will be increased in size?
The issue of setting a precedent is also important, as your comment at Talk:2008_Tennis_Masters_Cup#A_Query_From_rst20xx implies that at present there are no tournament GAs or FAs - which, as a moderate tennis fan, I hope will soon be remedied. However if this part of the discussion gets complex, a GA review is not the right place and I'd suggest it should be cut and pasted into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis and continued there. If a more complex discussion takes a while, I'm prepared to wait a month for a consensus to emerge and for this article to be adapted to whatever consensus emerges.
Please note that my comments below are based only on the 2008 articles - I haven't checked my suggestions against previous years' tournaments.
I've had a look at 2008 US Open - Men's Singles and at 2008 US Open (tennis). I've also had a look at 2008 Wimbledon Championships and at 2008 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles, which as a pair follow a similar structure. In both cases I feel that the main tournament articles are vast indigestible lumps and should be split, with separate articles for the main tour events (Men's Singles, Ladies' Singles, the single sex doubles and possibly the mixed). To be honest I'd play the minor events (juniors, seniors and qualifiers) by ear on a year-to-year basis - sometimes there's enough in the top-level tournament article without these, sometimes there isn't; and of course the top-level tournament articles should also summarise the key features of the main events, which will vary from year to year, e.g. emergence of new stars, farewells of old ones (several times for Martina Navratilova), first use of new facilities (e.g. Wimbledon Court 1), etc. In addition I think the current "Day 1, Day 2, etc." structure makes it harder to follow the progress of any one competition, especially for fans who are mainly interested in one type of competition. Since the draws for at least the Men's and Ladies' Singles in these tournaments are huge, I suggest the seedings and results tables should be be in additional articles, e.g. "2008 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles Draw". Then 2008 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles would be free to provide a text acount of the Men's Singles, but hopefully more briefly and concentrating on highlights such as upsets, comebacks (within matches), great matches, who was on form and who was not, psychology, incidents, etc. (and, in the case of Wimbledon, any resurgence of serve-and-volley). And so on for the other competitions. I'd expect a similar structure to work for the other Grand Slam tournaments.
With non-GS tournaments I'm not sure there's a one-size-fits-all structure - some have only one competiton (e.g. Mens' or Ladies' Singles) and some have more; some have large draws in each competition and some have small draws; etc.
Returning to the 2008 Tennis Masters Cup, the draws are currently quite small, so the text accounts, withdrawals, seedings and tables can fit in one article for each competition. And I expect that most years there's enough to write about in the top-level article, e.g. how the location was selected, whether the venue was existing / upgraded / new, whether any controversies arose or were resolved (e.g. about China getting both the 2008 Masters and the 2008 Summer Olympics, or any political protests during the 2008 Masters). --Philcha (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
And of course, it should summarise the two child articles... well I think what you wrote sounded very sensible, in my opinion you make some good suggestions, but I'm gonna leave this GAN alone now (enough hijacking on my part!), and wish the best of luck to all parties involved - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody doing anything about this? If I don't see a response in the next 4 days I will have to assess this as "failed GA". --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm watching this but don't have time to help out (nor did I write the article at all). I have, however, left notes on the talkpages of the three main editors for this article. The principle editor, Oxford St., hasn't edited since December, and his talkpage says he's on a short Wikibreak, but also that "he will swiftly answer any message concerning the GA nomination of 2008 Tennis Masters Cup, though." rst20xx (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I was pinged to come here. Oxford St. did all the work; the only reason I am involved with the article is becuase he asked me to copy-edit the article. I got through about half of it, but then a discussion about the article's length and use of summary style arose. I stopped copy-editing after that, and have not been involved with its progress since. I cannot help with anything to do with content. Unfortunately, Oxford has not edited since December 31, and it looks like the article will fail GA for now. Hopefully, he will return soon. The problem is, this is such a large article and as such, GA reviewers are loathe to touch it. This article was at GAN without a review for nearly two months. Who knows how long it will take next time? When Oxford returns, we should resolve the above issues before resubmitting. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, I am in a position as Rst20xx here as I haven't worked on the article, nor was I involved in any sort of discussion. But having a look at this now and the discussion on talk page, I see this is not going to be an easy ride. Particularly with the absence of the principle editor. I am also bewildered by the choice to go to GA first instead of PR. What are your thoughts on this? LeaveSleaves 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
If you go to PR it would be necessary to close this review with a "fail", as 2 concurrent reviews is a recipe for chaos, and an admin close of this review (so that no "fail" showed up) would remove the comments so far, which I think any PR should consider.
The article was nominated for GA review on 17 November 2008 and waited 2½ months before I set out to review it. I notice Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis has an Assessment Department but it does not seem to work all that fast. There's no sign of any Wikiproject review at Talk:2008 Tennis Masters Cup, and no PR section that I can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. If I were a main editor of this article I'd have gone straight for GA review, as my own experience of asking for PRs has not been encouraging. I know from looking around that I'm more patient than most GA reviewers, provided I see signs of action - and I'm a tennis fan, in a minor way.
OTOH if you can get a few Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis members to promise on their kids' / mothers' / a significant others' lives to review it pronto, that would be fine. In that case I think the first priority should be how to structure a package of articles about the tournament - as I said, if the refs stand up there's at least 2 GAs' worth of material. --Philcha (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, as you correctly noted, WP:Tennis is in disarray. Due to excessive edit wars, debates and other such problems, there are very few active editors left there. The project has no effective structure in place and at present has zero GA/FAs. The only GA it had in its life was removed not long ago. That's actually the reason why I jumped here so quickly. I was aware that this was underway and just didn't want it lose for lack of workers. But I wasn't expecting such a dire situation this GA is in. A PR won't exactly have ideal participation, but I feel there are a few participants who could be able to contribute to a certain effect. I would try and start implementing your suggestions, but I doubt I'd able to work enough to get it in place soon enough, not without the help of its principle editor. Now I know this is not my place to say this, but I think you should let this review slide for now. Should Oxford St. fail to turn up soon enough, we'd let this one go, regroup and renominate again with the concerns addressed. LeaveSleaves 01:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for responding. I'll wait a week to see if Oxford St. or anyone else takes it on. If not, I'll issue a "fail" - which would be sad, because the main problem is that there's too much good stuff here. --Philcha (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* :( rst20xx (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of Oxford St.'s retirement from WP. I said I'd wait a week, and that time's up too. Regretfully I have to conclude that this article has failed to reach GA level. However if the refs stand up there's 2 or perhaps nearly 3 GAs' worth of material here, and I hope someone goes for it. --Philcha (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - - please put GA review commments / response above this line - - - - - -

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)