Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roger Federer/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:45, 1 June 2010 [1].

Roger Federer

Nominator(s): BLUE _DOG^TN 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the criteria for a FA and it is the best tennis article biography on wikipedia.BLUE _DOG^TN 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something needs to be done about the awful dropdown records tables. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest need to be done?BLUE _DOG^TN 00:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now (ignore this if problems are fixed but I haven't had time to have another look). The main problem is the article is stats-heavy from the outset. The lead focuses too much on statistics and also includes unnecessary trivia (listing the other players to have won the career grand slam, for instance, is not appropriate in an introduction). The lead should probably also include something about his global appeal and brand.

His tennis career is what makes him NOTABLE, which is the reason for the stats heavy introduction. I am wondering if we put in his brand would it be construde as marketing and adverstising on wikipedia?BLUE _DOG^TN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no description of how he got into tennis (I know there's a link to another article but some basic information should be included). There's no need to give the scores of every match that he's involved in (occasionally it might be appropriate) - the important part is the result and effect on his career. The prose is essentially just a list of every tournament he played and how he did - it's hard to read and lacks any context. How did he feel at the time? What was expected of him? What was the response of the press? How did this fit into the peaks and troughs of his overall career?

I agree this article does not talk about how he was started into tennis, which I will find out! I agree on the aspect of the scores in prose, which is now WP:Tennis says is wrong to put them in the body of the article. The reactions are put on the yearly articles because we tried to advoid the SIZE restrictions because this article was becoming way too long.BLUE _DOG^TN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that every tournament needs a reaction and so on - just the more significant ones. In terms of size, I think the article could grow a bit without it being a huge problem. The tables at the bottom don't really count towards size, and so there is room for a bit more prose. Trebor (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on RF, but as a 'for instance' - the period from the 2008 Wimbledon final (which could have far more written about it) to him crying after losing the Australian Open to Nadal at the start of 2009 - that has far more about it than the article suggests. It seemed like he was being surpassed by Nadal and there was a transfer of power, along with him losing his number one ranking. But he came back (partly due to Nadal's injuries forcing him to miss Wimbledon), winning the French Open for the first time, regaining his ranking, beating Sampras' record and so on. There is far more going on than him merely winning some tournaments and losing others, but from the article you wouldn't know it.

This is chronicled on the 2008 and 2009 yearly articles because it is way too much to talk about and the years were becoming books!BLUE _DOG^TN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand what I'm getting at - and I'm not trying to be harsh. It's just that, at the moment, you don't gain much more from the article than you would get from just reading a list of his results. Trebor (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I get it, which is what you all are suppose to do is to make crutiques! Good JOB...BLUE _DOG^TN 05:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, but dead links to http://www.atpworldtour.com/tennis/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=roger+federer&player2=rafael+nadal, http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/6741576?MSNHPHCP&GT1=10035, http://www.atpworldtour.com/1/en/news/newsarticle_1967.asp, http://gillettewinners.com/custom/en_in/html/roger_federer.shtml, and http://www.rogerfederer.com/en/fanzone/askroger/index.cfm (as well as various others to rogerfederer.com). Some of those may be temporary problems. Ucucha 06:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have noticed that it doesn't use consistent citiations. A few citiations have the first/last special in the template, while others use just the author special in the template. Guy546^(Talk) 20:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Why is Bowers listed as a "reference"? There are no citations to his book. And in any case, with such a non-neutral title, what would be its value as a source for a neutral encyclopedia article about Federer?
Format consistency required in citations. Titles precede publishers in the first 29 references, then publishers precede titles in the next 18 before changing back, etc.
Publisher details should be informative. Acronyms generally are not, except to them in the know. (AELTC, ITF, ATP)
Citation 61 lacks publisher information (an url is not a publisher)
Citation 79 is unformatted.
Names of print sources (The Observer, The New York Times, etc should be italicised. Check throughout. Likewise, names of non-print sources should not be italicised.
The Federer oficial website is cited as a source. It should not, therefore, be listed under External links.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Object The article is not comprehensive. It has been chopped out to year-by-year articles, which are needed, but now there is nothing left except a list of stats from GS results, which in any case can be duplicated in table, as the article is more like a bulleted list put end to end. (And 5 lines per year for a person who usually reaches at least teh SF of every big tournament doesn't cut it). For a person who is one of the true greats (a much over-used term) there is now hardly any detail. More importantly the article doesn't convey his evolution as a player and that of his rivals in trying to catch up/nullify him. Nothing is said about Nadal improving on grass and making Wimbledon more difficult, or conversely how Federer was weak on clay and gradually improved. The stats are just laid down and nothing is said about verious epic matches, eg Wimbledon 07-09. And nothing is clarified about his apparent slump in 2008 and early 2009, illness and then return to form, or explaining various changes in his style/repertoire, or dissecting his rise to dominance, etc. And the advertisement+ambassador section is greater than his playing style. Very undue weight as his stylishness and technique is commented on ad nauseum, not the off court stuff. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, close this FAC because I believe I would not have time to fix all of these errors in the time alloted to me for this FAC, I will come back to it at a future date. I will use your all crutiques, and take them under advisement, which will allow me to fix the article over time to be the best article it can be! I welcome more comments if you all want to make them, and appreciate those who have already given them! THANKS...Y'ALL!BLUE _DOG^TN 20:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.