Wikipedia:Peer review/Masters Tournament/archive1

Masters Tournament 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 would like to improve this article to good article status over the next week or two, and hopefully towards FA status later on. Anything you think would improve the article would be appreciated. Also, I would love an opinion on how close it is to GA status. :)

Thanks, Grovermj 04:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
- Done and copyedit ongoing

Comments from Brianboulton: This looks an informative article about a major international sporting event. In terms of its becoming GA or FA, I suggest development along the following lines:-

Lead: Should be extended to provide a proper summary of the whole article. Information that could be mentioned in an expanded lead includes the role of Augusta National Golf Club in not only hosting the event but deciding who plays there, hence the restricted field; a summary of the privileges accorded to the winner – green jacket, club membership, tour exemption etc; a brief survey of winners – who has won most times, first overseas winner, that sort of thing. These details are properly covered in the article's main body, but should be briefly prefigured in the lead. Done. Expanded lead, may need a copyedit though. Grovermj 11:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have copyedited the lead. However, the third paragraph as it stands is not really suitable for a lead - the particulars of the Sarazen story really belongs in the article, as do certain other small details. I suggest a shorter version of the third paragraph as follows:-

Jack Nicklaus has won more Masters Tournaments than any other golfer, winning it six times between 1963 and 1986. Other multiple winners include Arnold Palmer and Tiger Woods, with four apiece. Gary Player from South Africa, was the first non-American player to win the tournament in 1961. The tournament organisers regularly extend the length and layout of the course to meet developments in equipment technology and player skill, a practice which began after the arrival of Tiger Woods at the 1997 tournament.

- If you are happy with this, I advise you put it in instead of the present third paragraph. I will keep an eye on this article, and try to come back soon to help with some further suggestions. Meantime I will ask the user, below, to give us a link to the Wikipedia table chronology rule to which he refers. Call me on my talkpage if the need arises. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for that, i've put in your suggestion for the lead. Thanks for all your help! Grovermj 02:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Broadcasting: Consider converting the bullet-point format to text. Done. converted bullet points to text, also revised slightly. Grovermj 12:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Par 3 winners: Is this necessary? As I understand it, the Par 3 pre-tournament is a semi-social event that has no bearing on the main tournament and is not considered by the pundits as serious golf. I would have thought a brief reference to it was all that was required. Done. I can definately see your point here, I have put the information in the traditions section and lost the table. It can always be salvaged and turned into another article one day. Grovermj 12:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are some points for you to consider. I have not checked out the prose – it would be a good idea to get someone to do a general copyedit. Incidentally, I like the format of your winners' table, having the most recent at the top of the list. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, i'll get to your suggestions straight away! Grovermj 11:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Done and ready for more! Any other suggestions from anyone? Grovermj 12:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done quite a bit of heavy copyediting, down as far as the history section. I will try to get back and do the rest, but it can't be for a few days. I have scanned through the rest of the article, and a couple of things occur to me that could be worked on meantime:-

Prize money. It would be interesting to have something about the size of the prize fund, and its growth in recent years, including how much the winner gets now compared with what he got in 1934 and other earlier years. This information must be on the web somewhere, or perhaps you have a printed source? Done. I wish I had a good printed source, but it's all on the internet anyway. Thanks again for your time on this article. Grovermj 00:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too much "golfspeak" in the history sections. Sentences like "...pitched with an eight-iron to the green, where the ball sat down too quickly" are difficult for non-golfing people to understand. As a general point I think there is too much detail in these history sections and it would be better to summarise them more concisely. Done. Grovermj 10:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do feel free to revert any of my changes if, as a result, you think the article no longer says what you wanted to say. Brianboulton (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The answer to your question - "How close is this to GA?" is, in my opinion, "close enough". It certainly could be nominated now, and would stand a good chance of succeeding. Brianboulton (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs) edit

Personally I don't think the winners table is needed seeing as their is a separate list for it, the heading should be kept and a bit more info about the winners should be added as well. Incidentally the table is also in breach of Wikipedia rules on chronology which states that tables should begin from the latest date not the most recent. NapHit (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give us the link to the Wikipedia chronology rule? Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here NapHit (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - This page does not state that the table has to be in first to last order. "if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable". I think that it is much more useful to have this way up. On the topic of whether or not the table should actually be there, I can see your point, maybe I should just put some prose in and link to your FL. Grovermj 02:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh I would go along with that, having the table there is duplicating info, especially seeing as the list is of featured quality, seems pretty stupid to have two lists. A paragraph of prose and maybe a picture of Jack Nicklaus should suffice. NapHit (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A brief summary of the main features of the list will do fine. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Replaced table with prose. Grovermj 01:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]