Talk:2008 Australian Open

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nominee2008 Australian Open 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.
February 11, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
WikiProject Australia / Melbourne / Sports (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon2008 Australian Open is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Tennis (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 

Writing Style[edit]

In the text under the heading Day 6, there are expressions such as made light work of and truly herculean, and in particular a match that will surely provoke discussion about the validity of night matches.

These are all statements of opinion and not encyclopedic fact. The possibility of discussion over the late finish of Lleyton Hewitt's match is not something to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, however when such discussion does emerge in the media and other primary sources it will then be valid to report it here with citation(s). Darcyj (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely there has to some lee-way for style within these summaries, to make them more melliflous. I've added a citation for the point of discussion, but in retrospect...I know it was a mistake to add it in at that time. I've found three sources stating that Williams was tested by Mirza (in no ambiguous terms) and three that state Ivanovic had an easy match. I suppose clarifiction is needed - is the problem the lack of citations, or are these summaries inappropriate in this tone, even with citations? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Sports[edit]

Can someone add updates to the Aussie Open? Since it's the quarterfinals already, the results will be needed there. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 10:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A very big dismissal Fed express lost in semi[edit]

serbian star & no three seeded novak djokovic beat federrer by 5-7 3-6 6-7 federrer lost after 19 consecutive win in australian open he lost in 2005 final last time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usman 1910 (talkcontribs) 12:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ga failed[edit]

This article needs some substantial work before it can pass GA

  • The article is not appropriately weighted in terms of the coverage of the matches. Basically all matches are given equal precedence, rather than increasing precedence from the first round to the final. eg, the match between Federer and Djokovic is only described in one short sentence describing the score and another short sentence describing Federer's streak, and is not much longer than other arbitrary selected matches in the earlier parts of the tournament
  • The description of the matches is a little mechanical and relies heavily on just raw data, instead of discussing the implication of the matches as seen by the tennis experts. eg, Djokovic and Tsonga upsetting Federer and Nadal led to commentators speculating about the next generation of players breaking the Federer-Nadal duopoly etc.
  • The important matches such as the final, semifinal, KO of Henin etc, need to be explained in more detail wrt how they unfolded, rather than simply having a link to a separate article.
  • There is no preview-type section that discusses the lead-up to the tournament - who was in form leading in, who was fancied to win, lead up form etc.
  • 24 hr clock should be used per the MOS, eg in quoting the time in the Baghdatis-Hewitt match and other long matches which went until 2am etc.
  • For the scores, ndashes should be used, eg 7–5, 6–2, 6–4 rather than 7-5, 6-2, 6-4.
  • The lead needs to be much longer and summarise the tournament in a more holistic way. At the moment it looks as though the lead was written before the tournament and then the result was tacked on at the end.
  • The tenses need to be updated to reflect the historic nature of the even.t Some parts of the article are still written in future tense: "X will meet Y in the next round"
  • Single sentence paragraphs need to be expanded or merged and integrated
  • Large chunks of the matchplay section are unsourced, particularly in the matchplay results sections.
  • Per MOS, the full names of the players do not need to be repeated over and over
  • The illegal coaching, too long matches should be integrated into the main chronological account. Whereas the more general stuff such as corruption and pedophiles are more off-field type things that should remain separate.
  • The seniors section after the day by day section is choppy and is best integrated into the general account. Else it would be best to split the men and women into separate sections and treat them as individual events,
  • The quotefarm and the gallaery definitely should be integrated into the appropriate and relevant section of text. Especially some of the quotes do not add much that is encyclopedic but are somewhat humourous anedotal things.
  • Is it really necessary to placate the Chinese Communist Party and not use the Flag of the Republic of China? What was the official registration of Taiwanese players?
  • Full access dates and author details are needed on the sources.

Best regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Perhaps I was a bit hasty nominating it so quickly. I'll try to address some of these points and maybe even apply them when working on articles for future slams. Regarding the players from Taiwan, or, the Republic of China, the decision to designate them as representatives of 'Chinese Taipei' is done in order to maintain consistency, as this is how the tennis organization bodies list them. They're entered as this in most sporting events, see Flag of Chinese Taipei (if you haven't already). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2008 Australian Open. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 Australian Open. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2008 Australian Open. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)