Talk:Big Four (tennis)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this as part of a GAN sweep. I'll leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 21:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguations: No links found.

Linkrot: No linkrot found in this article.

Checking against the GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I've noticed this has a mixture of British and American spelling, but that won't interfere with the criteria!

The lead section had too many paragraphs. WP:LEADLENGTH recommends a maximum of four. I've done some condensing if that's OK

Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are discouraged from the lead unless it's citing controversial information. Given the statistical nature of this article, it should be OK

"At the end of 2009 Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray finished as the ATP's top four players for the second consecutive year with only Nadal and Federer changing positions from the 2008 final rankings list." - unsourced

The 2014 section was too long to read comfortably, I merged a paragraph
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No original research found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I've done some cleaning up, but this article meets the criteria as it is well written, very comprehensive and all of the sources check out. Please revert anything you disagree with JAGUAR 16:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other Big 4 chart

Looks to be complete hogwash to arbitrarily lumps certain players together in eras. Lendl was intrinsically linked to Edberg and Becker, not Borg Connors and Mac. Lendl has 1 overlapped Major with McEnroe (1984) and zero with Borg or Connors. They were diffe'rent eras. You don't build a chart and try and fit the players in. The 70s to early 80s were Connors/Borg/McEnroe.... period. The Mid 80s to maybe early 90s was Lendl/Edberg/Becker. Early 90s to early 00s was Agassi/Sampras and about 10 other minor blips like Courier/Muster/Kafelnikov/Keurten/Becker/Brugera/Rafter/etc.. You can't just throw something into a chart that's not true and try and make it true through sheer force of will. I was going to try and fix it but I'm not sure it can be saved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is also discussed at Talk:Big Four (tennis)#Golden Era section. Gap9551 (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one disputed its bogusness, I removed the offending chart and associated material. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]