Content deleted Content added
89.144.101.13 (talk) No edit summary |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) Undid revision 305121480 by 89.144.101.13 (talk) revert blocked User:Chidel using open proxies as socks |
||
Line 245: | Line 245: | ||
::*Thanks for all your comments Don Lope. I have answered most of them and raised a couple of points. [[User:03md|<span style="color:blue;">03</span>]][[Special:Contributions/03md|<span style="color:red;">md</span>]] 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
::*Thanks for all your comments Don Lope. I have answered most of them and raised a couple of points. [[User:03md|<span style="color:blue;">03</span>]][[Special:Contributions/03md|<span style="color:red;">md</span>]] 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::I've put the resolved comments under a header to make room on the page. I'll come back later with answers to your points, and further comments. --[[User:Don Lope|Don Lope]] ([[User talk:Don Lope|talk]]) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
:::I've put the resolved comments under a header to make room on the page. I'll come back later with answers to your points, and further comments. --[[User:Don Lope|Don Lope]] ([[User talk:Don Lope|talk]]) 14:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
'''Oppose''' |
|||
The Rambling Man keeps deleting a clarification tag concerning this article without fixing the problem, and he has prevented 95 percent of Wikipedia users from improving the article by restricting it to established registered editors. I guess he still believes it would be "sad" for this article not to reach featured status, regardless of whether the article is factually accurate. What a great administrator he is! Anyway, concerning the tournaments that are counted when determining a player's ranking, the tag explanation says this: "This is an overgeneralization that does not apply to players who were outside the top 30 in the last year-end rankings. Refer to the actual ATP rulebook, not a secondary, summary document like an incomplete FAQ." [[Special:Contributions/89.144.101.13|89.144.101.13]] ([[User talk:89.144.101.13|talk]]) 18:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:33, 30 July 2009
List of ATP number 1 ranked players
- Nominator(s): 03md 10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone a peer review and I feel that, with a few improvements, it could be promoted to FL. Thanks. 03md 10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Oppose
- Because this table is sortable you need to link the names/countries every instance (that means country names have to appear in every row, also)
- Linked all the countries in the table
- Need a key section above the table to explain color/symbol
- Done
- Only need to color the name
- Done
- Boldface shouldn't be used as an indicator (see WP:MOSBOLD)
- Removed bolding
—Chris! ct 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have responded to all the queries. 03md 10:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Check the toolbox, there is a dab link and a couple of dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
*For future reference, don't use wikilinks in alt text. Also, avoid referring to a person by name since a person who can't see wouldn't be able to verify this or draw any conclusions from the name. For example, in this article, instead of "Tennis player Pete Sampras holds...", you would use "A tennis player holds..." (I already fixed this, but keep in mind for future reference)
|
Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Glad to see a tennis list over here, but issues need to be worked out.
- "The Number 1 ranked player" In the article's title, you use a lowercase "number". Then it's "World Number 1". Later on in the article, I see "Number-1". Any reason for the inconsistencies?
- Made consistent as "number 1". Please let me know if I have missed any.
- "He won his first Grand Slam title at the 2001 U.S. Open and won the Masters Cup at the end of the year and replaced Gustavo Kuerten at the top of the rankings."-->He won his first Grand Slam title at the 2001 U.S. Open and won the Masters Cup at the end of the year, replacing Gustavo Kuerten at the top of the rankings. what date did he reach the top?
- "Andre Agassi, in contrast, is the oldest ever number one, " "in contrast" is unnecessary, remove "ever".
Dabomb87 (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Sources
- What makes http://www.all-about-tennis.com/jimmy-connors.html reliable?
- Likewise http://www.tennistours.com/event_pages/nasdaq100/history.asp?
- These are probably not reliable - removed
- Ref 2 and 13, the publishers should not be in italics.
- Done
- Ref 6, add "The" to "Washington Post" and newspaper names should be in italics.
- Do I need to add some more references now? Thanks for all your comments. 03md 11:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
--Truco 503 02:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
- Oppose
- "... is the player who over the immediate cumulative 52 weeks has gathered ..." -> " ... is the player, who over the immediate cumulative 52 weeks, has gathered ..."
- Done
- "It is calculated by totalling..." timeframe (i.e. As of ...) since you've said it's changed a few times.
- Done
- "Players who qualify for the year-end Tennis Masters Cup include points won there." - no, the player's don't include points, their ranking includes the points.
- Done
- "Since the Association of Tennis Professionals..." already abbreviated it so use ATP here.
- Done
- "computerized rankings" - what happened before then? Non-computerized? It's unclear from this sentence. I guess they've always been computerized based on the table, so perhaps introduce that concept a little earlier on in the lead.
- Reworded the sentence and added "computerized" earlier in lead section
- "20 years, 268 days." vs "33 years, 4 months, 9 days old" - consistent age format please.
- Made the date format consistent
- Not clear (to me) what "Position in historical rankings" means.
- I'm not quite sure how to explain. I basically mean that Ilie Nastase was the first unique number 1, therefore is (1), while Nadal was the 24th different player since the beginning of the ranking system (24).
- "top rank" or "top-rank"
- I have left all cases as "top rank" (without dash) - I'm not quite sure.
- The very last table (I think) is not required. That information is already in the preceding table.
- Removed unnecessary table
- Note A is unreferenced. It makes a number of claims so cites please.
- Referenced Nadal's inactivity.
- Although not mandated, I see it as preferable to have reference date formats in the same style as the article date formats, so mdy. Right now your refs use dmy.
- Done, I think. 03md 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- "... is the player who over the immediate cumulative 52 weeks has gathered ..." -> " ... is the player, who over the immediate cumulative 52 weeks, has gathered ..."
- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Is there any reason this is "number 1" rather than "number-one"? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I was following the format of the article's title. 03md 15:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Couldn't the somewhat intrusive and big "Country" row in the first table just be the flag? If they're all coded the same the sorting should work, though I guess they might not be alphabetical. I dunno, it just seems like a very awkward table where you see country name before the athlete from that country. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose from Don Lope (talk · contribs)
Resolved comments from Don Lope
- "The ATP ranking is" → should be "The ATP Rankings are".
- Changed
- "the ranking of men's tennis players" → isn't "men's tennis players" incorrect ? It should probably be "the ranking in men's tennis".
- Done
- Same paragraph, both "top ranked" and "top-ranked" are used.
- Made consistent
- It's probably not necessary to say "male record" if the intro already says we're dealing with men's tennis.
- Removed "male"
- "Feat" doesn't seem to be the right term to talk about Lendl/Rios reaching No. 1 w/o any Grand Slam.
- Reworded
- Is it necessary to mention what finals Rios lost ? It would probably be more interesting to say he remains the only Grand Slam-less No. 1.
- Removed bit about titles and added suggested sentence
- I understand what you mean with "Position in the historical rankings" but I believe it's too confusing to be kept in that way.
- The order of accession to the No. 1 ranking could also be used in the table. What do you think about something like this ? (note that I'm not entirely convinced by my own proposal here):
- That was what I meant by "Position in historical ranking"
# | Country | Player | Start date | End date | Number of weeks | Accumulated total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ROU | Ilie Năstase | August 23, 1973 | June 2, 1974 | 40 | 40 |
2 | AUS | John Newcombe | June 3, 1974 | July 28, 1974 | 8 | 8 |
3 | USA | Jimmy Connors | July 29, 1974 | August 22, 1977 | 160 | 160 |
4 | SWE | Björn Borg | August 23, 1977 | August 29, 1977 | 1 | 1 |
USA | Jimmy Connors | August 30, 1977 | April 8, 1979 | 84 | 244 | |
SWE | Björn Borg | April 9, 1979 | May 20, 1979 | 6 | 7 | |
USA | Jimmy Connors | May 21, 1979 | July 8, 1979 | 7 | 251 | |
SWE | Björn Borg | July 9, 1979 | March 2, 1980 | 34 | 41 | |
5 | USA | John McEnroe | March 3, 1980 | March 23, 1980 | 3 | 3 |
- I like the proposal but having already altered the table several times it would be great if you could complete the proposed table and put it into the article
- The "As of July 27, 2009" note is in italics and with a bullet over the first table, and not in italics and without a bullet over the "Weeks at number 1" table. There should be only one format.
- Made the format consistent
- The green color in the "Weeks at number 1" tables is a bit too aggressive, I think. Why not take the same blue used in the other tables to denote active streaks ?
- Changed to a slightly lighter tone; changed pink to blue for consistency
- I might have missed something in the review but why did you remove the symbols in the "Weeks at number 1" tables ?
- What symbols were there before - I think someone else must have done it
- "although it has always been computerized." → Perhaps it's just me but that bit seems awkward here. Perhaps the mention of computerized rankings (vs. non-computerized rankings) should come in the first paragraph.
- Moved sentence - hope it's ok
- The whole second paragraph describes the way rankings were calculated in 2008, not 2009. And the "Tennis Masters Cup" is now called "ATP World Tour Finals".
- Done I think
- "Since the ATP began a ranking system for the first time in August 1973". The precise date of the rankings' inception could be mentioned. I think all the text about the rankings' history should come earlier, maybe in the first paragraph, with a bit about how rankings were made before the ATP computerized system, and a link to the World number one male tennis player rankings article.
- Done
- "He won his first Grand Slam title at the 2001 US Open and won the Masters Cup at the end of the year, replacing Gustavo Kuerten at the top of the rankings on 27 November 2001." → Is it necessary to mention the highlights of Hewitt's 2001 season in this article ?
- Removed
- User:The Rambling Man mentioned in the List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions's review that there might be a guideline against using flags w/o country names. You should use the Flagathlete template, as well as the Sortname one ({{flagathlete|{{sortname|Pete|Sampras}}|USA}} → Pete Sampras (USA)).
- "Pete Sampras holds the record for the total number of weeks at number 1 with 286 weeks, indicated in the table on the left. The table on the right shows the figures for the most consecutive weeks that players have spent on top of the world rankings; Roger Federer leads the way on 237 weeks." → Is it necessary to repeat records that are already in the list's lead, in the first table, in the "Weeks at number 1" tables, and in the captions ? (it's a genuine question, not sarcasm)
- I have trimmed the section to leave only the important points which aren't already covered.
--Don Lope (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your comments Don Lope. I have answered most of them and raised a couple of points. 03md 13:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)