Talk:International Tennis Federation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Tennis (Rated C-class, Top-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Organizations (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

World Champion[edit]

Who is the ITF World Champion? How is it decided?? Scineram 17:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Grand slam[edit]

Doesn't the ITF also run the Grand Slam events?

Yes it does, I will change the article to reflect that. --Balerion 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason to add the section of publication....[edit]

Previous publications....2009....2008....2007....if the rulebooks are specific to 2010...???

-- (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To me, it's better to monographing the rules according each event. See Talk:International Skating Union#Monograph of rules for each event....??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Does IPIN registration really require diacritic-less names?[edit]

The instructions for registering an IPIN are at

As a preliminary step, the online registration process first tries to lookup whether there is an already existing IPIN number, in which case registering a new one would be superfluous. This is described on page 5 of the above PDF document, note the text Step 2 Search for Your details in bold in the right-hand margin. On this page, the user is instructed to enter a Family name without diacritics, and to capitalize only the first letter.

However, it is only on the next page (page 6 of the PDF document), for the case where there is no prior existing IPIN, that the user is invited to actually create a new IPIN record by entering a Given name and Family name and other personal details and contact information. Here the only instruction is to capitalize only the first letter — there is no instruction not to use diacritics.

It's easy to guess the reason why diacritics are avoided in the preliminary lookup: the IPIN is a serial number code consisting of three letters and seven numbers (example: ALB1003941[1]), and it is typical of such serial codes that only non-accented letters are allowed; presumably the letters in the IPIN are automatically generated from the first three letters of the Family name with diacritics (if any) removed. The internal search engine of the website is apparently not smart enough to strip diacritics by itself when it converts a name like, say, "Albini" into ALB for the purpose of looking up an existing IPIN. However, there does not seem to be any limitation on entering name and contact information with diacritics. After all, whatever is typed here is simply stored directly into text fields in a database, and what modern database cannot handle Unicode?

In summary, the user instructions at the cited reference do not verify the claim that tennis players must register with a diacritic-less ("English language") name; rather, this is only a documented limitation of the lookup process for already-existing IPINs, which would need to generate a three-letter serial code prefix from a possibly-accented family name. To try to verify the claim that name and contact information can't be registered if they contain diacritics, it would be necessary to actually proceed with a fake registration, which is ethically questionable. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Overcondensing lists[edit]

If Pete Sampras won 6 ITF titles, he should have his name listed six times, not once. The same goes with the rest of multiple winners who might have won titles "in a row". What happens if they win titles/awards non-consecutively? In short, the display system needs to be revamped to indicate how many titles each player won. (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 23:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article against the good article (GA) criteria. More to come as I get going. Saskoiler (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)



  1. Well written:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The prose lacks clarity in many places. Fail Fail
    (b) (MoS) The article does not comply with the manual of style guidelines, and will require much work to make it compliant Fail Fail

    Examples of poor prose:

    • It was at this time that two compromises were reached: the title 'world championships' would be abolished and wording would be 'for ever in the English language'. - I don't know what this means.
    • In 1977 it dropped the word 'lawn' from its title, recognising that most tennis was no longer played on grass. - "It" is not obvious from the context here, and the rest of the sentence is sloppy.
    • ...and in time it is hoped that every tennis player worldwide will have a rating. - Hoped by whom?
    • Once players can ‘serve, rally and score’ they should have a rating to help them find players of a similar level to play with. - Like the previous example, this is not encyclopedic language at all.
    • Grand Slam events are actually held by ITF, not held by ATP/WTA, in which that many people may think that the ITF only held the smaller tournaments (ITF Men's/Women's Circuit, lower than any other levels). Grand Slam is also the highest level of the world tennis, even the ATP/WTA Year-end Championships. - Awkward and confusing.

    Manual of Style:

    • Lead section - The first sentence of the lead is appropriate, but the remainder of the details probably belong in a "History" section. Conversely, the lead needs to summarize the key aspects of the article, and it presently is silent on grand slams, ITF circuits, ITF world champions, etc. For an example of a better one, see FIFA.
    • Layout - There are significant problems with layout caused by the imbalanced level of detail throughout.
      • ITN and IPIN probably need to be given different section names, since the acronyms are not helpful to the casual reader.
      • Grand slams are mentioned first inside the "Function" section, but then there's an entirely separate "Grand Slams" section.
      • There's a random "Records" subsection that doesn't belong at all.
      • There is an "ITF World Champions" section, which includes a "See also" to ITF World Champions (okay). But then the main "See also" section repeats the link to ITF World Champions (not okay).
    • Words to Watch - I did not specifically check these due to the large number of other issues with this criteria.
    • Fiction - n/a.
    • List Incorporation - There are sizable lists of ITF champions in tables (taking up about half of the entire article) that do not need to be in this article at all. They are already included, in full, in the subsidiary article. (Although, for readability I prefer the more compact format used in this article.)

  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) A "References" section does exist. However, there are bare inline references used following the world champion tables, and these are not included in the "References" section. Fail Fail
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) There are 16 citations at the time of this review. Nine of these are to ITF-published sites, so these are certainly reliable. The remainder are from reliable sites (e.g. WTA; mainstream media). Unfortunately, several of the citations consist only of a bare title and URL (or, in one case, just a URL), so there is no way to determine the citation source. For example, we have "The Circuit's Differences", but no indication what the source of this information is. References #5 (history of the ITF) and #12 (IPIN registration) are both currently dead links. Fail Fail
    (c) (original research) There does not appear to be any original research. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) A paragraph in this article appears to be copied almost directly from a cited source. For example, see this comparison concerning the paragraph about the controversy with the Tunisian Tennis Federation. Fail Fail
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article currently fails to address all of the main aspects of this topic. Fail Fail
    (b) (focused) The article currently fails to present a balanced set of information. Fail Fail

    Aspects of the topic which appear to be missing entirely include:

    • Administrative structure of the ITF (presidents; committees; voting/non-voting members; etc.)
    • Regional associations
    • ITF's role in Olympics/Paralympics (on par with its role in Grand slams, Davis Cup, Fed Cup - all of which are mentioned)
    • Coaching, development, officiating, rules
    • Drug testing, anti-doping
    • Beach tennis (Other divisions -- wheelchair, pro, seniors, juniors - are all mentioned, but this one is not, despite being under ITF jurisdiction)

    The level of detail provided in the existing sections is not balanced. For example:

    • The history is sparse (okay), but it is biased toward the location of the headquarters and ignores many other items (not okay)
    • Regional associations are missing entirely, and national associations are only mentioned by linking out to them. Contrast that with the ITN, IPIN, and Controversy topics which collectively cover about half of the prose. (Controversy section... that's good to have. But ITN and IPIN seem like really trivial topics to include when there is so little other prose.)
    • Controversy section mentions two items from 2013, but article has no mention at all about the betting scandal (in the news around 2016 Australian Open) or anti-doping involvement (in the news right now)
    • In section "ITF World Champions", there is (1) no prose and (2) Sizable tables listing men's, women's, and junior ITF champions. Instead, summary prose should replace the tables, which are duplicated in the background article:ITF World Champions.
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    Notes Result
    There is no biased language. The unbalanced selection of information to include in the "Controversies" section (where both items reference Israeli tennis entities) could be interpreted as biased selection. I don't believe this was intentional, but should probably be addressed. Neutral Neutral
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    Notes Result
    There is no evidence of a recent edit war or dispute. Indeed, there have only been 13 edits in the past 4 months before today. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) The only image in the article is an ITF logo. This image appears to have a valid fair use rationale, similar to other international sport federations (e.g. IAAF).

    Although the article passes this GA criteria as-is, I'd like to point out that a natural image for future improvement of this article would be some sort of world map showing member associations. These are present on several international sport federations. e.g. FIFA, IAAF, FIBA, FIVB, BWF

    Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The image is very appropriate for this article. There's no caption, but that's okay because of its use within the infobox. Pass Pass


Result Notes
Fail Fail This article needs a great deal of work to make it compliant with good article criteria. The main deficiencies are:
  1. the selection of material is not balanced, emphasizing some very minor details and ignoring others of equal importance entirely.
  2. the relationship between this "main" ITF article and the many subsidiary ITF articles needs to be better understood. In many cases, this article can simply contain summaries, and then link off to the appropriate, more-detailed sub-articles.
  3. the prose quality and adherence to the GA manual of style guidelines needs much attention

By the time those changes are made, this will be an entirely new article, and not simply a slight tweak on this existing article. For that reason, I'm closing this review now with a "fail" result.


I have a question, why all pass/fail blanks are replaced by "ask the 2nd opinion"? Could you give me more opinions of yourself about this article? 333-blue 00:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I haven't started the review yet. I will gradually be adding comments and assessment, section by section. Saskoiler (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Fully agree with the fail result. This article is nowhere near GA status yet (it currently has a 'start' quality rating). Not sure why it was nominated, unusually by an editor who has done virtually no work on the article.--Wolbo (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional notes[edit]

  1. ^
  2. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  3. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  4. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  5. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  6. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  7. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Remaining work to reach GA level[edit]

Over the past week or so, a few of us have been contributing to put a rough, but solid outline in place and flush out some initial prose in most sections. It's looking a lot better. As a top-importance tennis article, I'd really like to help it reach GA level, but there's a long way to go.

Some thoughts:

  • Prose: It's a good start, but needs a thorough refinement throughout.
  • Lead: As the sections in the body of the article have come together, it feels like there's enough here for three paragraphs in a summarizing lead: (1) governing body of tennis/wheelchair tennis/beach tennis; 211 national associations; regional associations (2) governance role, rules of tennis, anti-doping, partnerships with ATP/WTA/grand slam board (3) Competitions, awards, and rankings
  • TOC: I'm pretty happy with the TOC now. I think we have identified most of the main topic areas for this article, and have sections/subsections in place for each of them.
    • History: I think we could beef this one up. There's quite a bit on the ITF website, but other sources would be good too. (I don't have access to any books on the topic, however. Anyone?)
    • I think maybe "Anti-doping" and "Tennis integrity unit" should turn into full subsections within "Governance". This would make it clearer that there are full, main articles on these topics. (But, so far, the anti-doping article doesn't exist.) Thoughts?
    • Controversies: It feels like there's probably more to say here, but I admit I haven't done any research yet. Detailed information on controversies related to doping and betting would probably go in the child articles, but there's probably enough controversy left for this article.
    • I'm not convinced that the ITN and IPIN sections add much. Should we leave them in? If so, I can certainly clean them up quite a bit.
  • References: A good start, and certainly on the right track for GA, but diversifying to add supplementary sources would be great.
  • Images: Any ideas for improving these?

Anyone with thoughts for how to improve this? What do you think of the general balance of the article's sections as they are now?

-- Saskoiler (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)