Wikipedia:Peer review/2011 Australian Open/archive1

2011 Australian Open edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to get this to FAC although it needs to become a GA first (It is waiting at the moment) and I want some feedback. particually I want to know whether the day by day summeries fit in here although there is a deletion arguement going on which has been closed as merge, it seems to not fit in here plus this article is already very long. I've removed it for now.

Thanks, KnowIG (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Shouldn't the title indicate that this refers to a tennis tournament? After all, we have Australian Open (golf). Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably but then the AO is more likely to refer to tennis than anything else can move at a later point. Although the accademic Deb Stevenson states the 1999 Australian Tennis Open all the way through her piece. KnowIG (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General points

The uninformative title is still an issue, and should be resolved without delay
There are five dead links: refs 46, 47, 103, 151, 174. The last four are all to the ita.org site (other links to this site seem to be working).
The long reference list should be in at least 3, preferably four columns, to shorten scroll-down time.
In the Prize money section the edit links have become displaced. This happens elsewhere, too, where you have adopted a columnar format.
The term "viewership" refers to TV audiences. Attendance at the actual tournament should not be discussed as a subdivision of Viewership.

Prose

The prose overall is very weak and needs a good deal of attention to bring it to FAC level. The following list relates only to the lead and first short section. A full and careful copyedit is essential before this article proceeds.

The first line refers to "a men's and women's tennis tournament", but later we have references to "the professional tournaments", "the junior tournaments" etc. The first line needs to be harmonised with these plurals.
values such as "two thousand" and "four hundred and fourth" should be represented numerically. MOS recommends this for all values above 10.(You are using "99th" and "ninety-ninth")
"who both award" → "which each award"
"whilst" is a deprecated WP word. Recommend use "while".
As you refer to "women's doubles" you should also say "men's doubles"
"leaving her one away from a career Grand Slam". What does this mean?
"the titles were whitewashed" This is slangy and non-encyclopedic. Rephrase is more formal language.
"their first titles in both singles and doubles play" → "their first singles and doubles titles".
"The wheelchair titles saw..." Titles don't "see" - needs rephrasing
What are "Quad events"?
"The tournament was an event ran by" → "The tournament was run by..."
"that was part of" → "as part of". Comma required after "calendars"
"The tournament consisted of both men's and women's singles and doubles draws..." The word "both" is redundant, as it is in the next line ("both boys and girls")
The words "which is" are also redundant
Do not begin sentences with "Plus..." The word is unnecessary: "There were [not 'was'] also...", and again "which was" should be "as"
NEC should be explained and linked at first mention

I've done all of the prose points apart from NEC tour as I assume you want me to explain/link to it. The page doesn't exist right now, but I am working on it. KnowIG (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tables

A couple of points:-

The need for so many tables is questionable. Listing, for example, the wild card and qualifier entries takes a lot of space and provides very marginal information, particularly in the cases of the boys' and girls' tournaments. The seeds tables are useful, but perhaps overcrowded with information - the points movements, for instance. I also wonder about the usefulness of indicating players' nationalities with unexplained flags; how many people can identify the countries from these?
The large amount of table information means that it takes an age to get to anything related to the actual tournament. You could consider placing the essential tables after the descriptive material.

I hope you find these points useful. As I am not able to watch all my peer reviews, please use my talkpage if you want to raise ant issues with me, or if you would like me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]