Wikipedia:Peer review/1877 Wimbledon Championship/archive1

1877 Wimbledon Championship[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article is about the first Wimbledon tennis tournament, held in 1877, and as such has great historical significance within the sport of tennis. The article achieved GA status in June 2013 and since then I have significantly expanded it, restructured content, added citations and tried to improve prose. While an article is never really finished it is comprehensive in its current state regarding information that can be found in reliable sources. With the help of this peer review I would like to make it a FAC soon. The WikiProject Tennis has more than 20,000 articles but does not yet have a single FA (apart from two FAs for tennis video games) so it would be great if this could become the first one. If all goes well hopefully it will result in a WP:TFA sometime during this year's tournament. Your comments and suggestions are very much welcome on any aspect of the article, certainly as it is my first PR request.

Thanks, Wolbo (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found some volunteers who are willing to help with the peer review but they need a bit more time to do so. The article will probably see some review activity in the course of next week. --Wolbo (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Part review (first half of the article)[edit]

My reviewing time is limited, and rather than letting you wait longer, I am posting my comments on the first half of the article. You will also see that I have copyedited the lead and made a few prose adjustments in the main text.

Many of my points are fairly trivial, but please consider them carefully:

Origins

"struck with the palm of the hand and was called jeu de paume" → "struck with the palm of the hand in a game called jeu de paume".

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Rackets started to be used..." → "Rackets were introduced..."

Done. Changed it to "Rackets were introduced to the game..."

"17th and 18th century" → "17th and 18th centuries" with comma following

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"although sporadic mention was made of a long tennis or field tennis version during the second half of the 18th century". You should replace italics with inverted commas, and also reword: "although there are sporadic mentions of a "long tennis" or "field tennis" version in the second half of the 18th century".

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph break required at this point, so that a new pararaph begins "Between 1858 and 1873..."

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"made the creation possible of tennis balls..." → "made it possible to create tennis balls..."

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sphairistike" does not have a diacritic on its last letter in its Wiktionary entry or in other online dictionaries. It might be worth seeking a reliable source that covers the meaning of the word, beyond its ancient Greek origin.

The word can be found with and without the diacritic in various sources. However, in the sources that I regard as most reliable and authoritative (Gillmeister (1998), Todd (1979), Barrett (2003)) it is written as 'Sphairistikè'. Note also that two of the citations shown at Wiktionary, including one from 1875, spell it with the diacritic. Finally, see the Greek spelling of the word with the diacritic on the cover of the first edition of Wingfield's booklet on the game.--Wolbo (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "boxed set" has a rather specific contemporary meaning, so I'd advise a different choice of wording here

Done. Changed to "sold as a set in a wooden box".--Wolbo (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In November 1874 Wingfield published a second edition of The Book of the Game..." – but you have not said when he published the first edition. If in February 1874, this should be made clear.

Done. Was indeed included in February 1874. Added "..and included an eight-page rules booklet." to make that clear and added "expanded" to the second edition of November 1874.--Wolbo (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All England Croquet and Lawn Tennis Club

Clarify what the £5 was set aside for (or omit this detail as trivial)

Done, removed. The £5 was for the search, not the ground. Has been removed it as it is a minor detail and indeed a bit trivial within the context of the article.--Wolbo (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not hyphenate "outer suburb"

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should cut out some of the peripheral detail in this section. Matters such as the club's annual rental and other domestic arrangements are inessential background to an article about th efirst Wimbledon tournament. It would however be of interest for you to mention at this stage what set of rules for lawn tennis had been adopted by the club.

Partially done. Removed the sentence on the pavilion that was built and the Croquet Championships that was held as indeed being too tangential to the article topic. For the same reason the cost of the ground search was removed from the section. The annual rental has relevance to the subsequent financial difficulties of the club which in turn led directly to the introduction of lawn tennis and should in my view be kept to preserve that narrative line.--Wolbo (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why mention badminton?

That was added recently to accurately and completely reflect the decision taken by the All England Club in 1875. I have no sources to indicate that it was actively played at the club in any meaningful way. As an alternative I could delete it from the main text and instead add a mention of it in a footnote.--Wolbo (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't italicize "Cavendish

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1876 four more courts..." – I think you mean "lawns", which would then become courts.

Well spotted. Done.--Wolbo (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of lawn tennis

Again I am concerned with the level of detail here. Bearing in mind that the subject of this article is a tennis tournament, not the history of tennis, and that the rules under which the tournament was played are set out, I think a shorter summary of MCC's involvement – perhaps a couple of sentences incorporated into the previous section – would be sufficient.

Removed a sentence on John Moyer Heathcote as the initiator of the MCC meeting. Made some changes to tighten the prose and make it flow a bit better. Replaced "his tennis game" with "Sphairistikè" for a better link to the preceding section and explained who John H. Hale is. I do believe the content on the MCC tennis rules is important enough to warrant a separate (sub)section. It is a significant event in and of itself and provides chronological and causative context for the rules which were created by the All England Club for the tournament.--Wolbo (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the explanation of who John H. Hale is, this was already explained in the preceding section on the All England Club.--Wolbo (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament

"This championship was to become the world's first official lawn tennis tournament, as well as the first edition of what was later to be called a Grand Slam tournament or Major". Reword (following amended wording in lead): "This championship became the world's first official lawn tennis tournament, and the first of what would later be called a Grand Slam tournament or "Major"."

Done. Added the word 'edition'.--Wolbo (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow presently. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brian for taking the time to review the article. Certainly useful feedback. Will respond to your points one by one.--Wolbo (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I haven't been able to return to the review, but it has proved impossible. I really won't have time to look at the rest of the article in detail, but I am glad to see that you are getting plenty of help from other reviewers. Just a handful of extra points from me:

I think the information about what happened to the original silver trophy (note L) should be in the main text, not buried in a footnote.
In note p you state: "The original tennis balls were uncovered". What do you mean by "the original tennis balls" – how far back are you going? Clarify if you mean the balls initially used in the modern game.

Done. Changed to "The original lawn tennis balls were uncovered.".--Wolbo (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note t refers to "journalist Tony Mottram". In fact, until around 1955 Mottram was Britain's No. 1, a Davis Cup player of many years' standing and a Wimbledon quarterfinalist. Before my time, but my dad would have known all about him. You may want to make him "journalist and former player"

Done. Changed to "tennis author and former player Tony Mottram" and added a wikilink.--Wolbo (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "first and only" is a pet peeve of mine. If it was his "only", you don't need to say it was his first.

Unpeeved.--Wolbo (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to leave it there, I'm afraid. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Csisc[edit]

First, I have to thank you for the excellent work you have already done. However, there are some comments that should be considered.

Tournament: The Part about Rounds only showed the score of the 1st and 2nd Wimbledon Winners. It does not show the full list of participants and the detailed results. This should be considered because the table you mentioned is extremely too small to be seen clearly by audience. You should do that because many people like to see for the players after the game. You can also add something about each round and what are the extremely important facts that happened in them. However, for the other facts, the work describes well the tournament and its important circumstances.
Records: You can mention a table in which you cite the important records of the tournaments like the biggest scores and tbe biggest audience. This would be useful to see if there was a competition between players. You can also involve some other records not related to the round like Weather Conditions and Time spent in competitions.
Wear: The Wear of the Wimbledon Players should be involved in the work. There are some facts about this... You should include this because it is important to see how Tennis developed.
Organization: The work lacks of important information about the tickets of the tournaments, the sponsors, how the players were chosen to play in the tournament, how the place was prepared so that the tournament could be played there, the Tennis Ball, the referees, the cup, the medals...

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Csisc, thank you for taking the time to review this article. It does seem to me that your comments are more applicable to general article on the Wimbledon Championships and less so to this specific article on the inaugural edition of the tournament in 1877.--Wolbo (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Resolute[edit]

Ok, my own review, trying not to step on Brianboulton's toes in the process.

First thought: I agree with Brian's concerns about the level of detail unrelated to Wimbeldon. For instance, I don't see three paragraphs on the origins of lawn tennis as being necessary unless it can be tied into Wimbledon. So to that end, I think there is value in a couple sentences on the 12th century origin, and growth in popularity, but the focus should be on the changes that Wimbledon caused. In this case, the use of a rectangular court instead of the hourglass style, etc. So, as a suggestion, perhaps look for ways to merge and trim the origins and rules sections, then place them in context of the rule changes that this tournament made? I realize this would effectively cause a significant overhaul of three sections of the article.

Converted the sentence "The invention of the lawn mower in 1827 allowed the creation of smooth, flat croquet lawns that could easily be adapted for lawn tennis, and the introduction of vulcanised rubber around 1840 made it possible to create tennis balls that bounced properly on outdoor grass courts." into a footnote and merged two paragraphs, making the introductory section on the origins of lawn tennis more concise. --Wolbo (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the origin of lawn tennis has been further trimmed by removing the sentences 1) "The first article on Wingfield's game was published on 7 March 1874 in the Army and Navy Gazette and the Court Journal.", 2) "Sphairistikè, soon to be colloquially abbreviated to Sticky, was sold as a set in a wooden box which cost either five guineas (small) or £10 (large) and consisted of balls, four rackets, poles, pegs and netting and included an eight-page rules booklet." and 3) "In the year following the issuing of the patent more than 1,000 tennis sets were sold, mainly to the aristocracy and upper class.". Upon reflection this content is probably more suited for a separate article on Sphairistikè versus one on the first Wimbledon tournament.--Wolbo (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical/Procedural

If you wish to reach FA, the images will require alt text per WP:ACCESS.

All images in the article body have alt texts. The only exception in the article is the the infobox image and it doesn't seem that it will accept an alt text. --Wolbo (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: alt text is not a FA requirement. There is a division of view about the usefulness of such text. Brianboulton (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When using multiple citations consecutively, ensure they display in numerical order. i.e.: under the announcement section, three cites are as follows: [46][47][10] - move cite 10 to the front of that trio.

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent reference formatting. Cite 10 lists The Telegraph by name, and the website address. Cite 12, in contrast, notes St. Petersburg Times by name, but no website address. Personally, I would just remove the telegraph.co.uk address as redundant. (same with www.wimbledon.com for cite 54)

Partially done. The website field has been removed from the Telegraph reference as it is almost the same as the publisher. Have kept www.wimbledon.com, now cite 53, as it is different from the publisher.--Wolbo (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

I have found in the past that what I expect in Canadian English and what I read in British English rarely mesh well. Consequently, I probably won't focus on prose quality too much (I'll leave that to Brianboulton), but rather on organization and structure.

Link "rackets" in the lead since I think most readers would be unaware of what that sport actually was.

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Going to skip the origins and rules of lawn tennis sections for the moment, pending a decision on how (or if) you wish to change those sections)

All England Croquet and Lawn Tennis Club

This does not need to be changed, but I personally dislike starting paragraphs with "on date x, y happened." So perhaps lead with "The All England Croquet Club was founded 23 May 1868 by six gentleman at the offices of The Field magazine"?

Could not find any guidance on the preferred location of dates in a sentence. In the absence of guidance this may be a matter of personal preference and taste. I have changed the sentence you mentioned to avoid too much repetition of paragraphs / sentences starting with "on date x, y happened.". --Wolbo (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"After a yearlong search for a suitable ground S.H. Clarke Maddock discovered four acres of" - Probably a difference in British vs. Canadian, but I would have expected a comma: "After a year long search for a suitable ground, S.H. Clarke Maddock...". Please disregard if this is proper for EN-UK.

Decided to rephrase the sentence and make it more concise, removed the name. It now states "After a yearlong search a suitable ground of four acres of meadowland was located...". --Wolbo (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament

Is there a wikilink for what a pony roller is? (would apply to lead as well)

Done. Added wikilinks to Roller (agricultural tool).--Wolbo (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that it is not until the third time The Field is mentioned that you note it was a "weekly country and sports magazine". Perhaps move that to the first mention?

Done. Moved it up to the first mention in the section on the All England Club.--Wolbo (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Two prices will be given" - is that a typo? Did the original text say "two prizes will be given"?

Done. Typo indeed, well spotted.--Wolbo (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the Play section, you note that the draw resulted in three semifinalists, then you go on to list the result of the three matches, then you discuss how to "resolve the situation". I was left confused because the results broke the connection between the problem and the resolution. I would reverse those two sentences: start with match results, then note that this left three semi-finalists, then note now the club resolved this.

Done. Agree that the order you mention is more logical and I have changed it accordingly. Also moved footnote explaining the draw system in use to the first sentence.--Wolbo (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it known how many spectators watched some of the earlier days? I am curious to know if 200 fans was good (relatively) or bad (due to rain).

No, that information was not recorded. The Wimbledon Compendium in fact only shows daily attendance figures from 1949 onward. There is only a mention of "increasing number of spectators" for the quarterfinals on Wednesday, 11 July and this is mentioned in the text.--Wolbo (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Is it known whether the £10 profit was sufficient to purchase a new pony roller?

The lede was incorrect, the money was not for the purchase of a new pony roller but for the repair of the existing one. The lede has been corrected.--Wolbo (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Endnote b requires a citation (which is probably already one of the three in the main prose)

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it looks very good. Generally well organized and easy to follow. Cheers! Reso lute 00:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Resolute, appreciate your effort in making this review. You have clearly had a thoughtful look at the article and made good suggestions for improvements. Will address them point by point.--Wolbo (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]