Talk:Stade Roland Garros

Inconsistency about Roland Garros as an Ace

This article claims "[Roland Garros was] the first pilot to shoot down five enemy aircraft, and to be called an 'ace' for doing so" but Roland_Garros_(aviator) biography page says "Garros is erroneously called the world's first fighter ace. In fact, he shot down only four aircraft; the definition of "ace" is five or more victories." - which page is correct? Math2000 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Use as a Nazi holding camp

How is this not mentioned at all in this article? It has been covered by a number of media outlets including the BBC during 2003's Open (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/french_open/1947151.stm) 68.239.234.51 (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stade Roland Garros/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: KnowIG (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead should be 3 paragraphs, although maybe short enough for 2 paragraphs

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Pretty sure that Gem is a fan site. Location section completly unsourced. Tenniseum and clay courts relies on one source, could be a copyvio. Too many unsourced things. And another is to a ticket site. Since when has Wiki been adverts. Also one to a blog not from a journalist. World Stadiums.com is a bit of a fan site, don't think it's totally reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Too much player info imo. This is about the stadia not the players

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Is there not a shot showing the whole complex. Also if not shouldn't PC be the court in the picture and not SL.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Out of date in expansion v relocation as a result has been announced.

Comments on above

For whatever it's worth:

1. A failing grade for writing quality, based solely on the lead being 2 paragraphs instead of 3?

   When GA criteria make no mention of how many paragraphs need to be in the lead? Really?

Look at MOS. Depending on lengh. I think this may be able to get away with 2 but double check MOS.

1. As a professional writer, I happen to think it's pretty well-written (though I do have a bit of bias in that regard).

   Please cite specific examples of poorly-written prose.

2. Please cite examples of factual inaccuracies.

   Ticket site cited to source number of seats in stadium -- also sources venue location, BTW (see below).

Or you could use this reliable source 1 2 And I would have thought that the size be mentioned in the whole leaving RG or not stuff.

1. Gem is not a fan site. Other sites reliable & verifiable.

   And why does the venue's location need to be sourced? It's not like there's controversy over where it is.

This is wikipedia not a fan site....

1. However, I'll work on extra sources if others think this is a valid criticism.

2. How do you discuss a historic tennis venue without some mention of players who made the venue historic?

   Those asides are in no way the focus of the article.

3. --
4. --
5. No, there is no non-copyrighted photo of the complex as a whole -- at least none I could find.
6. Expansion/relocation info has been updated -- although the issue is by no means settled. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• May I suggest a read of the All England Club and seeing how that is and thinking about trying to make this article more like that if you get what I'm getting at. KnowIG (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, be happy to, but I'd still like some examples of what you feel is poorly written, or inaccurate, or both. DoctorJoeE (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm -- in reviewing the All England Club article -- are you saying we should include a section on the French Open, even though there is a separate article for that? I'm not sure padding the history would be an improvement, but I'll look into it. Still need to know what writing you feel is sub-par. DoctorJoeE (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Aircorns Review

The original reviewer is currently blocked and if the nominator agrees I am willing to continue with the review. AIRcorn (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have considered the previous reviewers points and the answers above and tend to agree with most issues they raise. I have also compared this to other stadium articles and while it is one of the better tennis stadium articles I unfortunately feel it doesn't reach the standard set by Stadium Good Articles. I also feel it would take too much effort to get it up to the required standard in seven days. I suggest addressing the points below and then getting a Peer Review and trying again. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 05:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have decided to change it to holding as I was mistaken about the seven day time limit and the author wishes to address the points. I also exceeded the criteria in some of my comments (specifics here). Most of these are easy fixes and I think would improve the article, but will not need to be completed for this article to pass.AIRcorn (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• I am fine with the lead being two paragraphs, although the second one is very short. However, the lead should be a summary of the article. Ideally nothing should appear in it that is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Apart from the Tenniseum nothing in the lead is in the body. I left some examples below of sentences I found problematic (most come from the first section).

• While the Roland Garros surface is invariably characterized as "red clay", the courts are in fact surfaced with white limestone, frosted with a few millimeters of powdered red brick dust

Should the second comma be an "and" or "that is"?

"in fact" is redundent

• Beneath the 3-inch-thick layer of porous limestone is 6 inches of volcanic rock, followed by a 3-foot (0.91 m) layer of sand, all of which rests on a slab of concrete.

use the Template:convert (or enter by hand) metric and imperial measurements for each measurement (don't care which are in brackets, as long as it is consistent)

3-inch-thick - thick is redundant

Sentence seems clunky could it be reworded. (Suggest moving the 3-inch up a sentence and re-wording "Most courts are layered, below the limestone is six inches of volcanic rock and three foot of sand on a concrete slab.

• The red brick dust is replaced as needed (daily, during major tournaments).

Why is there a comma after daily? Does it mean it is done both daily and during major tournaments or is it only done daily during main tournaments.

• The surface was a state-of-the art solution, in 1928, to the biggest problem with natural clay courts: poor drainage. At the time, it was not unusual for clay surfaces to be unplayable for two to three days after even short periods of precipitation.

Suggest rewriting and switching these sentences, talk about the problem and then the solution

• The limestone/crushed brick combination

Avoid using "/", could be replaced with "and"

• Also all numbers under ten should be written out, there should be no single sentence paragraphs, the location section should be written in prose and the court names should not be bolded (I would consider linking via a main template as articles exist for each court)

• Should the translations contain "the"? e.g. (the "Great Lady") (the "Four Musketeers")

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• Location section needs to be sourced. It doesn't matter if it is not controversial, all information needs to be verifiable. Non-controversial stuff can be sourced to a primary source for a GA.
• The NY times source says "Most courts at Roland Garros are constructed of several layers of materials", while this article seems to imply they all are.

Not sure where the three-feet of sand comes from either

• Could articles available on the web be linked in the references
• The surface was a state-of-the art solution, in 1928, to the biggest problem with natural clay courts: poor drainage

The year 1928 refers to an American court being built in Xsport [1] and the same article says clay courts were made with crushed brick in 1909

• All websites refs need retreival dates and similar formatting (e.g Tenniseum and World Tennis Magazine's all caps title)
• Probably too many Primary Sources are used, as there must be reliable secondary sources out there covering the same information. However as most appear to cover relatively uncontroversial facts they may be acceptable.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• I feel it needs a history section or at least more info covering the early history
• Information about the French open and Roland Garros (aviator) should be expanded.
• The last few sentences in the second paragraph of playing surfaces go into too much details about clay surfaces in general. One or two sentences should suffice (especially if it is merged somewhat into a history section.
• There may be a bit too much info about some players and matches, in particular at the end of court 1. "The famous dropped pants match" sounds like trivia. If they are important for the stadiums names (like the Musketeers) then I feel the level of detail is about right.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• The surface was a state-of-the art solution. "State-of-the art" sounds a bit peacocky, plus I could not find a mention in either of the two references
• The tennisium section reads like an advert -- Tours are conducted daily. (Two per day, at 11:00am and 3:00pm, are in English.)

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

3. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stade Roland Garros. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601083339/http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/index.html to http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100601083339/http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/index.html to http://www.rolandgarros.com/en_FR/about/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Roland Garros

An editor who is either unregistered or not logged in and claims to be French tells us that the the o of Roland is pronounced in the same way as that of Garros and says that they are both close. He/she gives this video as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRbLIDqbeMM. I have listened carefully to it and I am hearing an open o in Roland and a fairly close o in Garros. French has a true open o, rather closer than the English short o, which in RP is actually a rounded back a. The o in Garros is somewhat less close than I should expect.

I looked for another example and found this page: https://forvo.com/word/roland_garros/. The first example is more or less what I should expect to hear, but again with only a fairly close o in Garros. However, I definitely hear a difference in the quality of the two vowels. Is there a phonetician out there with even sharper hearing than I have? LynwoodF (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a phonetician. Listening to multiple pronunciation websites listed at Google, both O's sound long (and the same) to me. The only difference I can hear is how long you hold the long "O" in each word, with the time-span being less in Garros. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Vowel length is not particularly important in French. What I am talking about is tongue position and I am hearing an open o in Roland and a somewhat closer o in Garros. There is not a lot of difference, but the first o is not close. LynwoodF (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I have found another example which is particularly clear: https://www.pronounceitright.com/pronunciation/roland-garros-5363. Again I hear an open o in Roland and a somewhat closer o in Garros. LynwoodF (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

They sound the same to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The second 'o' sounds a lot shorter to me.--Wolbo (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The vowel length is not significant in French. The first o is open, as in Dutch dok, and the second o is rather closer, more like the o in Dutch hoofd, although the difference does not seem to me to be as great. LynwoodF (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been listening to French sounds for over 60 years and I have lived in various parts of France. Parisians tend to say [ʁɔlɑ̃ ɡaʁos] and this is what I am hearing in all the recordings referred to above. However, in the south you may very well hear [rolaŋ garɔs] and no doubt there are numerous other regional variations. It is disappointing that other people do not seem to hear the difference between the two sounds, but I can assure you that it is there. I have been looking for an independent example of the name in IPA, but the only one I have found is in the entry on Roland in Wiktionnaire, the French version of Wiktionary. The punctuation is not what is commonly used in the English-speaking world, but the sounds are as I should expect. LynwoodF (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well the anonymous editor has not got back on this, so I am going to change the pronunciation on this page and on two others which he/she also altered. LynwoodF (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Improving images

Hi,

Do you think we can improve the article even more by providing better images for Stade Roland Garros and the courts? The images already provided seem too insufficient to portray the entire sports venue. I mean, in comparison to the article on Melbourne Park (the sports venue for the Australian Open), those images seem to capture more of the venue.

Thanks, RemixCMDR

Looking at Melbourne Park, those photos look the same as this article except Melbourne has one nice aerial view. Does a free image exist of an aerial view of the French Open? Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Shutterstock has some better images than the ones here...RemixCMDR(click) (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• RG log inst cou Q.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)