Talk:Maria Sharapova/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Endorsements

The opening paragraph mentions that her commercial endorsements greatly exceeds her tournament winnings. Since this is true for most major sports personalities (Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Andre Agassi, etc) and thus not that notable, I have removed the sentence to the Endorsement section. Okadoz (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) If an article is notable, not everything in it also has to be notable. (2) We are talking about a female tennis player, not a male tennis player, male basketball player, or male golfer. (3) The opening paragraph is well-sourced. Tennis expert (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

According to Sports Illustrated, of the top 50 highest-paid athletes, all male, only 10 have endorsements greater than their winnings, while another 6 are close. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

2004-2008

Without advance discussion, User:92.3.138.123 has unilaterally chopped the information in this article about Sharapova's playing activity from 2004 through 2008 because this user believes it was "ridiculously indepth previously." When I contested these edits-against-longstanding-consensus, I was answered with edit warring from this user and then a warning from User:Dudesleeper. I propose that the information be restored to the following:

2004

Sharapova started the year by reaching the third round of the Australian Open, where she lost to seventh-seeded Anastasia Myskina 6–4, 1–6, 6–2. The week after the Australian Open, Sharapova lost in the second round of the Tier I Toray Pan Pacific Open in Tokyo to Daniela Hantuchova. She then returned to the United States for three hard court tournaments, reaching the semifinals in Memphis, the fourth round at the Tier I Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, California, and the fourth round of the Tier I Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida.

During the spring clay court season leading up to the French Open, Sharapova lost in the third round at both Berlin and Rome, which were both Tier I events. At the French Open, Sharapova reached the quarterfinals of a Grand Slam singles tournament for the first time in her career, losing to Paola Suárez 6–1, 6–3.

The tour then switched to grass courts in the lead up to Wimbledon. In Birmingham, Sharapova defeated Tatiana Golovin to win the title.

The 17-year-old Sharapova went into Wimbledon as the thirteenth seed. She reached her second consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinal, where she defeated Ai Sugiyama 5–7, 7–5, 6–1, and then upset fifth-seeded and former World No. 1 Lindsay Davenport in the semifinals 2–6, 7–6, 6–1. She then upset the heavily favored and two-time defending champion, Serena Williams, in the final 6–1, 6–4, to become the third-youngest Wimbledon women's champion (after Lottie Dod and Martina Hingis) and second-youngest in the open era. She was the first Russian to win the tournament and was, at the time, the lowest seed to win the women's event. (Venus Williams was seeded lower when she won the tournament subsequently in 2005 and 2007.)

During the North American summer hard court season leading up to the US Open, Sharapova played three tournaments. She lost to Myskina in the quarterfinals of the Tier I tournament in San Diego. She lost to Vera Zvonareva in the third round of the Tier I tournament in Montreal. And she lost in the second round of the tournament in New Haven.

At the US Open, Sharapova lost to French player and two-time Grand Slam champion Mary Pierce in the third round 4–6, 6–2, 6–3. During the tournament, Sharapova and several other Russian women tennis players wore a black ribbon in observance of the tragedy after the Beslan school hostage crisis, which took place only a few days before.

Sharapova then played three tournaments in Asia. She lost to Svetlana Kuznetsova in the semifinals of the China Open in Beijing. During the next two weeks, Sharapova won the Tier IV tournament in Seoul, South Korea and successfully defended her Tokyo title.

Before returning to the United States, Sharapova reached her first Tier I final in Zurich, losing to Alicia Molik. At the Tier II tournament in Philadelphia, Sharapova reached the semifinals before defaulting her match to Amelie Mauresmo. Sharapova then ended the year by winning the WTA Tour Championships. She defeated an injured Serena Williams in the final after being down 4–0 in the final set.

Sharapova finished 2004 ranked World No. 4 and was the second-ranked Russian (behind Myskina). She won five titles during the year, trailing only Davenport's seven and equaling Justine Henin's total. Sharapova also topped the prize winnings list for the year.

2005

Sharapova started the year by reaching the semifinals of the Australian Open, where she lost to eventual champion Serena Williams 2–6, 7–5, 8–6, despite holding three match points.

In February, Sharapova won her first Tier I event in Tokyo. Three weeks later, she won the tournament in Doha. To complete the spring hard court season, Sharapova reached the semifinals of the Tier I Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, California and the final of the Tier I Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida.

Sharapova participated in two of the clay court tune-ups for the French Open. She lost in the quarterfinals of the Qatar Telecom German Open in Berlin to Justine Henin and the semifinals of the Internazionali BNL d'Italia in Rome to Patty Schnyder. At the French Open, Sharapova lost in the quarterfinals for the second consecutive year, falling to Henin, the eventual champion.

On grass, Sharapova successfully defended her Birmingham title, defeating Jelena Jankovic in the final to extend her winning streak on grass to 19 matches. She then was unsuccessful in defending her Wimbledon title. She reached the semifinals without losing a set, where she lost to Venus Williams, the eventual champion.

Lindsay Davenport injured her back in the Wimbledon final, preventing her from defending the ranking points she obtained during the U.S. hard-court season of 2004. Sharapova had fewer points to defend and therefore rose to the World No. 1 ranking on August 22, 2005. She was the first Russian woman to hold the position. Her reign lasted only one week, however, as Davenport re-ascended to the top ranking after winning the title in New Haven.

At the US Open, Sharapova lost in the semifinals to eventual champion Kim Clijsters. Sharapova lost to the eventual champion in all four Grand Slam events of 2005. Nevertheless, the points she accumulated at the US Open meant that she once again leapfrogged Davenport to take the World No. 1 ranking on September 12, 2005. She kept that ranking for six weeks before relinquishing it again to Davenport following the Zurich Open.

Sharapova failed to defend her title at the season-ending WTA Tour Championships, losing in the semifinals to eventual champion Amelie Mauresmo.

Sharapova finished the year ranked World No. 4 again and as the top-ranked Russian for the first time. She won three titles during the year and was the only player in 2005 to reach three Grand Slam semifinals.

2006

At the Australian Open, Sharapova lost in the semifinals to Justine Henin 4–6, 6–1, 6–4, the only match of the year that Sharapova lost after winning the first set.

Sharapova claimed her first title of 2006 and eleventh of her career at the Tier I Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, California. She defeated fourth-seeded Elena Dementieva in the final 6–1, 6–2.

Sharapova then lost in the final of the Tier I Sony Ericsson Open to Svetlana Kuznetsova.

Sharapova participated at the French Open without having played any of the clay court tune-ups because of injury. After saving three match points in the first round against Mashona Washington, Sharapova was eliminated in the fourth round by Dinara Safina 7–5, 2–6, 7–5, after Sharapova led 5–1 in the third set. Sharapova lost 18 of the match's last 21 points.

Sharapova then started the grass court season but failed to add a third successive Birmingham title to her collection, losing in the semifinals to American Jamea Jackson. At Wimbledon, Sharapova was defeated in the semifinals for the second consecutive year, losing to eventual winner and World No. 1 Amelie Mauresmo 6–3, 3–6, 6–2.

Sharapova claimed her second title of 2006 at the Tier I Acura Classic in San Diego, defeating top-seeded Kim Clijsters 7–5, 7–5. This was Sharapova's first victory over Clijsters in five meetings. She then played in Los Angeles, losing to Dementieva in the semifinals. This was Sharapova's only summer hardcourt loss of the year.

Sharapova was the third-seed at the US Open. She defeated Tatiana Golovin 7–6, 7–6 in the quarterfinals before defeating Mauresmo in a semifinal 6–0, 4–6, 6–0. Sharapova then prevailed over second-ranked Henin in the final 6–4, 6–4 to win her second Grand Slam singles title, having dropped just one set en route and joining the list of eight players who had beaten the top two players in the world to win a Grand Slam singles title.

Sharapova then won two tournaments in consecutive weeks. At the Tier I Zurich Open, Sharapova defeated Daniela Hantuchova in the final. At the Generali Ladies Linz, Sharapova beat fellow Russian and defending champion Nadia Petrova to take her fifth title of 2006 and the 15th title of her career.

Until her loss in the semifinals of the WTA Tour Championships to Henin, Sharapova had won 19 consecutive matches. She finished the year at World No. 2 and, for the second year, as the top Russian player. During the year, she compiled a 59-9 record and won five titles (second only to Henin's six), including three Tier I titles, more than any other player.

2007

Sharapova was the top seed at the Australian Open because of World No. 1 Justine Henin's withdrawal. Sharapova defeated the 62nd-ranked Camille Pin in the first round 6–3, 4–6, 9–7 on her fourth match point in air temperatures that exceeded 40 °C (104 °F) and on-court temperatures that exceeded 50 °C (122 °F). In the semifinals, Sharapova defeated fourth-seeded Clijsters to reach her first Australian Open final and gain the opportunity to win the only Grand Slam singles title that a Russian woman had not yet won. However, Serena Williams, ranked World No. 81, overpowered Sharapova 6–1, 6–2 in the final. Reaching the final allowed Sharapova to recapture the World No. 1 ranking.

Partly due to hamstring and shoulder injuries that reduced the effectiveness of her serve, Sharapova did not win any of her next three tournaments. At the Tier I Toray Pan Pacific Open in Tokyo, Sharapova retired from her semifinal match with Ana Ivanovic. At the Tier I Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, California, Sharapova lost to Vera Zvonareva in the fourth round 4–6, 7–5, 6–1 after Sharapova lead 5–4 in the second set. This loss resulted in her losing the World No. 1 ranking. In the fourth round of the Tier I Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida, Sharapova lost to Serena Williams for the second consecutive time 6–1, 6–1.

Injuries forced Sharapova to miss most of the clay court season for the second consecutive year. Her only tune-up for the French Open was the Istanbul Cup, where she lost to Frenchwoman Aravane Rezaï in the semifinals 6–2, 6–4. She then reached the semifinals of the French Open for the first time in her career (saving a match point against Patty Schnyder in the fourth round), but fell to Ivanovic 6–2, 6–1.

On grass at the DFS Classic in Birmingham, United Kingdom, Sharapova lost in the final to second seeded Jelena Jankovic 4–6, 6–3, 7–5. At Wimbledon, Sharapova lost to Venus Williams in the fourth round 6–1, 6–3.

Sharapova's first summer hardcourt tournament was the Tier I Acura Classic in San Diego, California, where she was the defending champion. She progressed to the final relatively easily, showing few of the serving problems that had dogged her all year. In the final, she defeated eleventh-seeded Schnyder 6–2, 3–6, 6–0, claiming her first title of the year, fifth Tier I title of her career, and the 16th singles title of her career.

At the East West Bank Classic in Los Angeles, a shin injury caused Sharapova to withdraw from her semifinal match with fellow Russian Nadia Petrova shortly before the match started. Nevertheless, she clinched the US Open Series for the first time.

Seeded second at the 2007 U.S. Open, Sharapova won her first two matches with the loss of only two games but then lost her third round match to 18-year-old Pole Agnieszka Radwańska 6–4, 1–6, 6–2, partly due to poor serving and a host of unforced errors. It was Sharapova's earliest exit at a Grand Slam singles tournament since she lost in the same round at the 2004 U.S. Open.

Sharapova did not play again until the Tier I Kremlin Cup in Moscow in October, where she lost to Victoria Azarenka of Belarus in the second round, 7–6(9), 6–2 (after a first-round bye). The recurring shoulder problem then forced Sharapova to withdraw from events in Zurich and Linz, at both of which she was the defending champion.

Sharapova qualified for the WTA Tour Championships only because Venus Williams withdrew from the tournament. Playing only her second match in two months, Sharapova beat World No. 9 Daniela Hantuchova in her first round-robin match, before coming from a set down to defeat World No. 2 Svetlana Kuznetsova to ensure a place in the semifinals. In her final round robin match, Sharapova defeated Ivanovic in just over an hour. As the winner of the Red Group, Sharapova then played the runner-up of the Yellow Group, Anna Chakvetadze, in the semifinals. Sharapova won that match 6–2, 6–2. In the final, Sharapova lost to World No. 1 Henin 5–7, 7–5, 6–3 in a match that lasted 3 hours and 24 minutes. This was the 12th longest tour match during the open era.

Sharapova ended the year as World No. 5 on the official WTA tour rankings, the fourth consecutive year that she finished in the top five. However, for the first time since 2004, she did not finish the year as the top ranked Russian. Kuznetsova, who finished World No. 2, held that honor. Sharapova also won just one title (at San Diego), the first time she had failed to win at least two titles since 2002 (when she played just three WTA matches).

2008

Sharapova was the fifth seed at the Australian Open, her lowest seeding at a Grand Slam singles tournament since the 2004 U.S. Open. On the way to the quarterfinals, Sharapova defeated former World No. 1 Lindsay Davenport in the second round and Elena Dementieva in the fourth round. In the quarterfinals, Sharapova defeated World No. 1 Justine Henin 6–4, 6–0, snapping Henin's 32-match winning streak. Sharapova then reached her second consecutive Australian Open final when she defeated an injured Jelena Jankovic 6–3, 6–1. She defeated Ana Ivanovic in the final, dropping only 10 service points during the match. She won this tournament without dropping a set.

After the Australian Open, Sharapova participated for the first time in Fed Cup. In the quarterfinal tie against Israel, Sharapova helped Russia reach the semifinals by winning her singles matches against Tzipora Obziler and Shahar Pe'er.

At the Qatar Total Open in Doha, Sharapova won the singles title by defeating Vera Zvonareva in a three-set final. This was Sharapova's second title of the year, sixth career Tier I singles title, 18th career singles title, and 14th consecutive match win. She has won the Doha singles title both years she has played the event, the first coming in 2005.

At the Tier I Pacific Life Open, Sharapova defeated the defending champion, Daniela Hantuchova, in the quarterfinals 7–6(2), 6–1 before losing in the semifinals to Svetlana Kuznetsova 6–3, 5–7, 6–2. This was Sharapova's first loss of the year after 18 wins. Sharapova then withdrew from the Tier I Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida because of a shoulder injury.

At the Tier II Bausch & Lomb Championships in Amelia Island, Florida, Sharapova was the top seeded player. She defeated Anabel Medina Garrigues in the third round 7–6(3), 5–7, 7–6(1) in 3 hours and 27 minutes. She then defeated 2008 Australian Open women's doubles champion Alona Bondarenko in the quarterfinals 6–7(9), 6–3, 6–2 in 2 hours and 43 minutes. In the semifinals, Sharapova received a walkover to the final after her opponent, Davenport, withdrew due to illness. Sharapova then defeated Dominika Cibulkova in her first career clay court final. Immediately after this win, her ranking rose to World No. 4.

At the Tier I Family Circle Cup in Charleston, South Carolina, Sharapova lost to Serena Williams in the quarterfinals 7–5, 4–6, 6–1 after Sharapova had a set point at 5-3 in the first set and served for the set at 5–4. Sharapova claimed the second set but then lost the first five games of the final set. Her ranking rose to World No. 3 as a result of this tournament.

Sharapova was the second-seeded player at the Tier I Internazionali BNL d'Italia in Rome. She defeated Patty Schnyder in the quarterfinals 6–7(3), 7–5, 6–2 but then did not play her semifinal against Jankovic due to a calf injury. Sharapova nevertheless regained the World No. 1 ranking because of Henin's sudden retirement from professional tennis and request to the Women's Tennis Association that her own ranking be removed immediately.

Sharapova was the top-seeded player at the French Open. In the first round, she defeated compatriot Evgeniya Rodina 6–1, 3–6, 8–6 after being two points from becoming the first female top seeded player in the open era to lose in the first round of this tournament. In the second round, Sharapova struggled to defeat American Bethanie Mattek 6–2, 3–6, 6–2. Sharapova then beat 32nd-seeded Karin Knapp in the third round. Dinara Safina, the 13th seed, then defeated Sharapova in a 2 hour, 52 minute fourth round match 6–7(6), 7–6(5), 6–2. Sharapova saved two set points in the first set tiebreaker before winning the last four points to take the set and then had a match point at 5–3 in the second set. Sharapova broke Safina in the opening game of the third set, but Safina won the last four games of the match, breaking Sharapova's serve twice. Sharapova lost the match despite hitting 65 winners and only 39 unforced errors.

Her next scheduled tournament is Wimbledon, for which she is seeded third. After that, Sharapova intends to play the Tier I Rogers Cup in Montreal, the Olympics, and the US Open.

Tennis expert (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Word informs me that there are 106 instances of "Sharapova" and half as many "She"s in the above, which leads me to believe there's too much breakdown and not enough flow. As the edit page states: if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless Im mistaken, Tennis expert, consensus is NOT required to edit. If that was true, nothing would ever get done on Wikipedia, and in any case, by the looks of things, it seems that you have performed radical edits in this article before without consensus. Please show me where it says I need consensus in the guidelines.

But, for the record, this "longstanding consensus" you speak of thus far consists of only you; no-one else is yet to criticise my edits. You are also yet to point out flaws in my edits, only that it removes information (which is not against Wiki policy). On the other hand, I have pointed out constructive criticisms of the article in its previous form; do you honestly think it is at all necessary to point out her entire run at the fairly insignificant Tier II tournament in Amelia Island? That is not by any stretch standard for a tennis players article, and certainly not by the standards of general sportspeoples articles. 92.3.138.123 (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the length of the article has been discussed in an earlier section above this. Now, what happened? Let me check. Oh, right, Tennis expert argued with somebody who would like to see it trimmed. - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. In fact, I think Tennis expert should take some of the advice he gave in that debate, and he himself takes a look at Wikipedia:Be bold. 92.3.138.123 (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason that two early round matches are mentioned at Amelia Island is because those matches were not routine because they were unusually long; yet, Sharapova somehow managed to win the tournament. And a Tier II tournament is not an "insignificant" tournament. As for whether you (92.3.138.123) need consensus for editing Wikipedia, give me a break. Consensus is one of the pillars on which this project stands. Unlike you, my radical changes were discussed fully on the discussion page. Take a moment and go back through the history to satisfy yourself that this is an absolutely true statement.

How the "Sharapova" and "she" word count relates to radical deletions of material in her article is completely bizarre to me.

I'm simply curious, Dudesleeper, and certainly feel free not to answer if it would make you unconfortable. But is User:92.3.138.123 your sockpuppet? My curiosity has been piqued by your removal of my comment on the discussion page of that anonymous IP user and by your curiously strident defense of his or her edits here. As for the previous length-of-article debate, I was one of only many editors who opposed the unilateral effort to cut back the article. Before accusing me of things, please take the time to review the discussions and edit history. Otherwise, your being simply incivil. Tennis expert (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The Medina Garrigues win is perhaps notable, and youll notice I included that. But the Bondarenko win, while long, was not abnormally so, and as a quarterfinal match at an insignificant tournament (in the wider scheme of things) against a relatively mediocre opponent, it is certainly not notable. And I certainly dont see how getting a walkover from Davenport is notable. Nevertheless, that was merely one of many examples. Another is the French Open - I can see how the first round match was noteworthy, but the second- and especially the third-round match were not.

And your edits were "fully discussed"? Looks to me on this page like you posted them and no-one responded to your proposals at all. Hardly a rock-solid mandate. I again suggest you look at Wikipedia:Be bold, and realise I am perfectly within the rules.

And its a pretty bad sign when someone randomly accuses someone else of being a sock-puppet with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Just fyi. 92.3.138.123 (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Dudesleeper. Just demonstrating what my IP has been for, oh, thirteen months now. Next claim, please. - 69.207.236.60 (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the "Sharapova" and "She" word count, they were just two examples of how poorly written the article currently is. The majority of each paragraph begins with the same wording. - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Troublesome sockpuppet appears to be back

92.3.138.123 appears to be a sockpuppet of the troublesome 92.3.230.33, a self-admitted sockpuppet of the troublesome registered user Musiclover565 and a probable sockpuppet of the troublesome registered user Masha4ever. See the above and the histories of both this discussion page and the Maria Sharapova article itself for the record of these users' disruptive practices. Tennis expert (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Ive been waiting for you to try and pull this one! LOL. The fact you have gone from accusing me of being Dudesleeper to some anonymous guy from a few months ago within a few minutes speaks volumes, I think. 92.3.138.123 (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it's just a coincidence that your editing patterns and tactics are the same as the other anonymous IP user and that you're from the same city in Britain. Yeah, just a coincidence. Tennis expert (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh really, any proof of that? And even if what you say is true, are you seriously suggesting it is not feasible that two people from the same British city would be on Wikipedia? LOL. As for "editing patterns and tactics", I dont know what you even mean by that

But, just for the record, even if I was this person, how would it be relevant anyway? By the looks of things, my edits are completely different to what that guy wanted and were consequently disputed, so how would they be relevant to what we have been discussing today?

Im probably not going to bother responding to anything else you say on these accusations (no doubt youll come back with a "Guilty conscience!" or something). Let me know if you ever feel like a proper adult debate about this article, giving proper constructive criticisms and without attempting a smear campaign. 92.3.138.123 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think he/she has embarrassed him/herself enough with the sockpuppet claims. Personally, I'd have thought someone who has been accused of being one wouldn't accuse others. Unless.... - Dudesleeper / Talk 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

They might be the same person, but none of the accounts or IPs you've mentioned are currently blocked or banned; absent clearly abusive behavior, I'm not sure if there's much use beyond noting the likelihood/possibility and moving forward from there. I'm noticing several people accusing others of "vandalism," here, which doesn't exactly seem appropriate given the pretty strict definition provided at WP:VAND -- we're all working to improve the project, aren't we? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 92.3.138.123

It shouldn't be necessary for me to explain point-by-point why the edits of the Maria Sharapova article by 92.3.138.123 are unconstructive because, in my opinion, the diffs are completely self-explanatory. But apparently this explanation is the only way to move forward; so, brace yourselves for a very long list of the important differences.

(1) In the opening paragraph, 92.3.138.123 uses "June 23rd, 2008" instead of "June 23, 2008" and erroneously states that Sharapova is ranked World No. 3 when in fact she is ranked World No. 2.

(2) In the second paragraph, 92.3.138.123 deletes the following sourced information without explaining why: "Sharapova has been ranked in the top 10 since winning Wimbledon in 2004, the longest run of any current female tennis player."

(3) Throughout the article, 92.3.138.123 uses the nonstandard, e.g., "number 32 in the rankings" instead of the standard-in-tennis-articles formulation of, e.g. "World No. 32."

(4) In the section covering Sharapova's performances in 2004, 92.3.138.123 deletes without explanation all information about the Tier I Toray Pan Pacific Open in Tokyo; the Tier I Pacific Life Open in Indian Wells, California; the Tier I Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida; the Tier I Qatar Telecom German Open in Berlin; the Tier I Internazionali BNL d'Italia in Rome; the Tier I Acura Classic in San Diego; the Tier I Rogers Cup in Montreal; the Tier II Pilot Pen Tennis tournament in New Haven, Connecticut; the Tier II China Open in Beijing; and the Tier II Advanta Championships Philadelphia. Tier I tournaments are the most important tournaments on the women's tennis calendar except for Grand Slam tournaments. Tier II tournaments are just below Tier I tournaments in terms of importance.

(5) 92.3.138.123 illegitimately relies on bookmakers to support his conception of whether one player was favored over another in a match instead of legitimately relying on seedings or rankings.

(6) 92.3.138.123 uses the awkwardly phrased, "This win meant that Sharapova entered the top 10 on the rankings for the first time" instead of the well-written, "This win meant that Sharapova earned a top 10 ranking for the first time."

(7) 92.3.138.123 keeps the following in the 2004 information, which is strange given his stated objection to the length of the article. "During the tournament, Sharapova and several other Russian women tennis players wore a black ribbon in observance of the tragedy after the Beslan school hostage crisis, which took place only a few days before.

l(8) In the section covering Sharapova's performances in 2005, 92.3.138.123 deletes without explanation all information about the Tier I Sony Ericsson Open in Key Biscayne, Florida and the Tier I Qatar Telecom German Open in Berlin.

(9) 92.3.138.123 inserts the following unsourced and awkwardly written information concerning 2005: "However, in the semifinals of Indian Wells, she lost to Davenport 6-0, 6-0, the heaviest loss ever for a Top 3 player."

(10) In various places, 92.3.138.123 uses Justine Henin-Hardenne instead of Justine Henin. The latter is the consensus for tennis articles.

(11) Concerning Wimbledon in 2005, 92.3.138.123 uses the following awkwardly phrased and too long sentence, "Attempting to defend her Wimbledon title, she reached the semifinals without losing a set, but then lost to Venus Williams, the eventual champion, 7-6, 6-1." instead of the well written sentences, "She then was unsuccessful in defending her Wimbledon title. She reached the semifinals without losing a set, but lost there to Venus Williams, the eventual champion, 7–6, 6–1."

(12) In various places, 92.3.138.123 uses the grammatically incorrect "due to" instead of the grammatically correct "because of."

(13) In various places, 92.3.138.123 fails to link dates properly so that the date-displaying preferences of each reader of the article can be honored.

(14) 92.3.138.123 writes the interminable, "Although Sharapova also played very few tournaments in this time due to injury, she had fewer points to defend than Davenport, and therefore rose to the world number one ranking on August 22, 2005, becoming the first Russian woman to hold the position." instead of, "Although Sharapova also played very few tournaments in this time because of injury, she had fewer points to defend than Davenport and therefore rose to the World No. 1 ranking on August 22, 2005. She was the first Russian woman to hold the position."

(15) In the section covering Sharapova's performances in 2006, 92.3.138.123 writes the awkward, "An attempt to add a third successive Birmingham title to her collection failed for Sharapova as she lost in the semifinals to American Jamea Jackson." instead of, "Sharapova then started the grass court season but failed to add a third successive Birmingham title to her collection, losing in the semifinals to American Jamea Jackson."

(16) 92.3.138.123 writes the very long, "At Wimbledon, Sharapova was defeated in the semifinals for the second consecutive year, losing to eventual champion and world number one Amelie Mauresmo 6–3, 3–6, 6–2, her fifth consecutive defeat in a Grand Slam semifinal." instead of splitting out the fifth consecutive defeat information into a separate sentence.

(17) In various places, 92.3.138.123 repetitively includes the scores of tournament finals in the text even though those scores are already included in the tables.

(18) In the section covering Sharapova's performances in 2006, 92.3.138.123 omits the fact that Sharapova won two tournaments in two consecutive weeks during the autumn.

(19) In the section covering Sharapova's performances in 2007, 92.3.138.123 retains information about an exhibition tournament in Hong Kong but omits information about the Istanbul Cup, a tournament that counted in the rankings.

(20) 92.3.138.123 omits relevant information about the brutal heat experienced by the players during Sharapova's first round match at the 2007 Australian Open.

(21) Concerning the 2007 Sony Ericsson Open, 92.3.138.123 refers awkwardly to Sharapova's "succumbing to another defeat to Serena Williams" instead of the much simpler "Sharapova lost to Serena Williams."

(22) 92.3.138.123 omits the fact that Sharapova's championship at the 2007 Acura Classic in San Diego was Sharapova's fifth Tier I career title and 16th singles title of her career.

(23) 92.3.138.123 uses the awkward phrasing, "These losses meant that Sharapova fell out of the top five on the rankings for the first time in three years." instead of the well written sentence, "These losses caused Sharapova to fall out of the top five in the rankings for the first time in three years."

(24) 92.3.138.123 omits the fact that Sharapova defeated World No. 9 Daniela Hantuchova and World No. 2 Svetlana Kuznetsova during the round robin phase of the 2007 WTA Tour Championships.

(25) In the section covering Sharapova's performances in 2008, 92.3.138.123 strangely retains information about an exhibition tournament in Hong Kong but omits information about the Tier I Internazionali BNL d'Italia in Rome.

(26) 92.3.138.123 omits the fact that Sharapova defeated former World No. 1 Lindsay Davenport in the second round and Elena Dementieva in the fourth round of the 2008 Australian Open.

(27) 92.3.138.123 uses the awkward phrasing, "She defeated Ana Ivanovic in the final, dropping only 10 service points during the match, thus winning the tournament without dropping a set." as if there were cause-and-effect between dropping only 10 service points in one match and winning the tournament without dropping a set. This phrasing is far better, "She defeated Ana Ivanovic in the final, dropping only 10 service points during the match. She won this tournament without dropping a set."

(28) 92.3.138.123 omits relevant information about Sharapova having to play a total of 6 hours, 10 minutes in two matches on consecutive days at the 2008 Bausch & Lomb Championships in Amelia Island, Florida and thereby prevents readers from drawing their own conclusions about whether Sharapova's winning of this tournament was more extraordinary than if she had had easy matches throughout this one-week, clay court event (Sharapova's worst surface). 92.3.138.123 also omits the fact that Sharapova advanced to the final without having to play her semifinal match with Lindsay Davenport because Davenport defaulted because of illness. This "walkover" also was relevant to whether Sharapova's winning this tournament was remarkable.

(29) 92.3.138.123 omits the significant fact that Sharapova's ranking rose to World No. 4 immediately after she won the tournament in Amelia Island, Florida in 2008.

(30) 92.3.138.123 omits the relevant fact that during her quarterfinal match with Serena Williams at the 2008 Family Circle Cup, Sharapova had a set point at 5-3 in the first set, served for the set at 5–4, and lost the first five games of the final set. 92.3.138.123 also omits the fact that Sharapova's ranking rose to World No. 3 immediately after this tournament (despite losing in the quarterfinals).

(31) 92.3.138.123 omits the following information concerning Sharapova's fourth round loss to Dinara Safina at the 2008 French Open: "Sharapova saved two set points in the first set tiebreaker before winning the last four points to take the set and then had a match point at 5–3 in the second set. Sharapova broke Safina in the opening game of the third set, but Safina won the last four games of the match. Sharapova lost the match despite hitting 65 winners and only 39 unforced errors."

(32) 92.3.138.123 insists on adding the following unsourced and potentially inflammatory information, "She is also a Job's Daughters"

There are other differences, but the preceding are the important ones in my opinion. Tennis expert (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is 92.3.138.123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.158.227 (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for my late response. I have been busy the last few days.

I have restored my version, though have taken into account some of your points and implemented them. I will deal with them point-by-point, and hope you will continue to debate this rationally, and not go back to mindlessly reverting:

(1) corrected

(2) Re-added

(3) I am leaving this as it is for now. Im not at all sure "World No. x" is the standard for tennis article at all, and if it is, then its rather bizarre, given "No." is an abbreviation and I dont think is at all in line with general Wikipedia guidelines.

(4) I dont see how any of those you highlighted are relevant. Take a look at the Federer article - generally, all that are mentioned are Grand Slam results, tournaments he won, and other really significant results. I dont believe any of the results you highlighted falls into this.

(5) Could you give examples of these please?

(6) corrected

(7) removed

(8) Miami is still there. And I dont think Berlin is significant - it is not a really huge tournament (even if Tier I), she only reached the quarters and did not get any significant wins en route.

(9) I dont understand why you believe this to be awkwardly written?

(10) I only use "Henin-Hardenne" when she officially played under this name, therefore making it natural she would be listed in this article as this, I wouldve thought.

(11) This is where we fundamentally differ. I believe your version to be, while encyclopaedic, fairly poorly-written in that it is very stilted with an undeveloped structure, and does not make for a very good article. Dudesleeper appears to agree with me on this.

(12) I accept this, but unfortunately, I do not have time to correct all of them now. If you or anyone else wants to carry this out, by all means do so, or I will do it when I get chance tomorrow.

(13) I dont see how it is it all necessary to do this, or standard Wikipedia fare.

(14) see (11) - just because it is long does not make it poor.

(15) see (11)

(16) see (11)

(17) On most tennis articles, these scores are listed, including generally in your version I believe. It makes for easier reference.

(18) corrected

(19) Hong Kong info removed

(20) I dont really think this is notable.

(21) again, encyclopaedic does not necessarily mean sentences have to be in the simplest form.

(22) This can be seen in the tables at the bottom.

(23) see (11)

(24) Round-robin wins are not included in other years. I left the Ivanovic win in considering the enormity of the victory (given the scoreline and their last encounter).

(25) Hong Kong removed

(26) Davenport win added, but I dont think the Dementieva win is notable

(27) "10 service points" dropped

(28) The Bondarenko/Davenport results are not notable

(29) Ranking changes are not noted in other years

(30) Such intricate match details are not noted generally

(31) Ditto

(32) removed

I hope we have now reached a consensus

92.3.158.227 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Beating both the World No. 1 and the World No. 2 in the same tournament

I propose to delete the following in the article about Sharapova's performance at the 2006 US Open: "This was only the eighth time since 1975 that a female player had defeated both the World No. 1 and the World No. 2 in the same Grand Slam tournament.(citing http://2006.usopen.org/en_US/news/reports/2006-09-09/200609091157867004687.html Looking Pretty, Playing Gritty, Sharapova Takes New York)." Both the article and the source are clearly incorrect because I am aware of at least nine previous instances since 1975, which would make Sharapova's the tenth instance, not the eighth. But I do not have a third-party source to cite for this being the tenth instance. Here are all the known-to-me instances of this accomplishment since 1975:

1979: Tracy Austin (US Open) (defeated #1 Evert and #2 Navratilova)
1985: Hana Mandlikova (US Open) (defeated #1 Evert and #2 Navratilova)
1999: Steffi Graf (French Open) (defeated #1 Hingis and #2 Davenport); Serena Williams (US Open) (defeated #1 Hingis and #2 Davenport)
2000: Venus Williams (Wimbledon) (defeated #1 Hingis and #2 Davenport); Venus Williams (US Open) (defeated #1 Hingis and #2 Davenport)
2001: Jennifer Capriati (Australian Open) (defeated #1 Hingis and #2 Davenport)
2002: Serena Williams (French Open) (defeated #1 Capriati and #2 V. Williams)
2005: Serena Williams (Australian Open) (defeated #1 Davenport and #2 Mauresmo)
2006: Maria Sharapova (US Open) (defeated #1 Mauresmo and #2 Henin)
Tennis expert (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed BanRay 16:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Grunting

It appears we have a disagreement on where the note about her grunting should be on the article. I certainly think its necessary to have a note somewhere, considering, appropriately or not, her grunting IS one of her "trademarks", inside and outside the tennis world. In fact, I think it is so notable that it should go in the introduction. There is also the problem that it does not really fit in anywhere else on the article - someone moved it to 2008 earlier, but I certainly do not think it is appropriate there, so have moved it back to "Playing style" for now, though I dont think it really fits there either. I think the introduction is the most suitable place. What do others think? 92.2.112.171 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

From the article cited in this entry, "Today grunting among female tennis stars is the norm rather than the exception." IMO, this definitely does not need to be in the lead. It is not unique to her, and dates back in female tennis going on 20 years. If there is something to add other than she grunts loudly (such as Seles who many complained about) then maybe it belongs in a controversy section. Angrymansr (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, though, the introduction is meant to give an overview of the main famous traits/achievements, and right or wrong, if you ask the average person who is not that into tennis about Maria Sharapova, in many cases the first thing they would say is that she grunts a lot. Whitenoise123 (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you produce a cite that backs that up? Is this really what the average person thinks, or what you think the average person thinks? If it was a notable enough fact to go in the lead there would be no shortage of good cites about it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors who do not want the grunting to be in the introduction. Tennis expert (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Grading

I believe this article should be rated B. This is because I believe it largely meets the criteria for B-Class articles:

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref>-</ref> tags is encouraged. I think there are now no materials requiring sources without them now.

The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. I certainly do not think there are any glaring inaccuracies. I know there will be differences of opinion on "omissions", but I feel all necessary information is here.

The article has a defined structure, including a lead section and all appropriate sections of content. It contains all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. I am assuming there is no dispute about this.

The article is reasonably well written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. There are no grammatical errors, and I feel it flows reasonably well - the sentences are not as stop-start as previously, and are generally more developed, for instance: After the Australian Open, Sharapova extended her winning streak to 18 matches, a run that included two wins on her Fed Cup debut and winning the Tier I tournament in Doha, defeating Vera Zvonareva in a three-set final. She was defeated for the first time in 2008 in the semifinals of Indian Wells by Svetlana Kuznetsova. Sharapova then withdrew from Miami, claiming a shoulder injury.

The article contains supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams, where appropriate. It should have an infobox where relevant and useful. Images are not required, although illustrated articles are encouraged. I think we can agree it thoroughly meets this criteria. I personally feel the article would benefit from a few more images to break up the text a bit more, though I have no originals of my own.

The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. I do not feel there are any technical terms which are not common sense not explained.

I will assume anyone who disagrees with the rating will address each of the criteria in turn, stating exactly why they feel it does not meet it, citing examples. Whitenoise123 (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to edit war

... about a "grading", as there is a definition: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/B-Class_criteria. So please list below why you consider the criteria has not been met for a B class article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
3. The article has a defined structure, including a lead section and all appropriate sections of content.
4. The article is reasonably well written.
5. The article contains supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams, where appropriate.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.

It seems to me to be a solid B class article, btw. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

This article still requires a significant amount of work before it meets the Good article criteria, so it has been failed while the following issues are worked on:

• References should be formatted per WP:CITE/ES to at least include publisher and access date information
• A lot of information is missing references; especially most of the " Career" section and the "On-court tennis outfits" section also

Once these issues have been resolved, please renominate the article. Gary King (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable matches

Is this section really necessary? It is generally just a re-iteration of what has already been stated; the whole point of this Wikipedia page is to state notable moments in her career, so re: the material in that section, most of it is either already mentioned earlier on, or if it is not, it is probably not notable enough to be on the page in the first place. Whitenoise123 (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The clear and longstanding consensus is that this section should be in the article. And you really should study WP:N before commenting further on the notability of information within an article instead the notability of the article itself. Tennis expert (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have a reasoned discussion? I believe the section is unnecessary because it is generally a re-iteration of what has already been mentioned. Why do you personally believe it to be necessary? 92.2.121.212 (talk) - (Whitenoise123) 23:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by that this section has no place in the article, for the reasons stated initially. Other opinions welcomed, but please remember that past consensus should not stand in the way of improving the article. Please note that if there have no responses outlining why the section adds to the quality of the article within 24 hours, I intend to remove the section. Musiclover565 (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The section should remain in the article because it is relevant, useful, and well-sourced. You do not have consensus (yet) to remove it. Tennis expert (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The section appears to be a useful summary, however I see problems with it in that it is not simply report facts, but offering an opinion. There is no indication as to what criteria has been used in deciding what makes a match notable. This means it is open to being decided by the Wikipedia editor's POV. Unless we have a recognised authority to decide it for us (with cite of course)? Note that I am not questioning the match's notability for inclusion, I am questioning its POV labelling of notable above all other matches.

For example, what's to stop anyone deciding that, in their opinion, highlighting the 2008 French Open defeat by Dinara Safina is undue weight in an otherwise very successful career?

There are also entries in it that are uncited. If they are notable then surely a cite is to be found that verifies its notability? Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps you'd be willing to suggest another name for the section? The editors of Wikipedia decide in accordance with WP:CONSENSUS which facts are included and which facts are not included in Wikipedia articles. If that's an unallowed opinion-based decision, then there would be no articles at all. WP:NOTABLE applies only to the articles themselves, not to what is included in articles that are notable overall. Tennis expert (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether the fact should be included. It's a question of the emphasis being put on them. Changing the section name doesn't fix the problem, unless you want to head it "A random list of matches that implies nothing". The difficulty is that someone has picked these matches out as having particular significance. And in so doing they are voicing an opinion that they are significant, without any cite that says "this was one of Sharapova's must notable matches". And that's even before we consider the match analysis that goes along with it.

To give an extreme example to illustrate; what would you say if I was to create a section called "Maria's Greatest Moment" and write about my favourite Sharapova match winning forehand smash (with a cite to a mention of the match). All factual, but with an emphasis that is entirely my POV. And even if we all agreed that, yes indeed, this was her greatest moment, it still would be entirely POV unsupported by reputable sources. This "Notable matches" is obviously not as blatant, but it's the same thing.

The only way to remove opinion from the picture is to establish a factual measure for a match's inclusion, and I don't think that's something that can be established as a precedence on one tennis article alone. I'm not saying its a big problem. But anyone assessing the quality of the article is likely to ask "Whose opinion is it that these matches are so notable/significant/special/whatever that they deserve a special mention in a separate section?" --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What is your "factual measure" for deciding which facts to include in and which facts to exclude from a tennis biography? The facts that are included (regardless of the section name) implies that they have particular significance, with the converse also being true. And this represents our opinion, just as it is our opinion about which matches are worthy of individual attention. Your "extreme example" is so extreme as not to be helpful or illustrative here, in my "opinion". Tennis expert (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war

The slow-motion edit war currently in progress really needs to stop. What I'm seeing in the history isn't pretty, and needs to stop. I have no opinion on who is right on hte underlying issues. It doesn't really matter. What is happening here needs talked about, not edit-warred about. Figure things out, guys, don't edit war. I'll do my best to help if I can. ^S._D.Jameson 22:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This slow edit war has been going on since January, but the fun is just about to begin as Whitenoise123 (aka Musiclover565, aka Masha4ever) is about to send a complaint to the Arbitration Committee, so you're just in time, take a seat ;) BanRay 23:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, good lord. Never mind then... ^S._D.Jameson 00:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clear up, if I send a report to the Arbitration Committee, it would have nothing to do with this edit dispute, it would be a query about whether the Checkuser should have been permitted. On the topic of the actual edit dispute, I have attempted to start discussions with Tennis expert numerous times, all of which he has ignored (most recently yesterday). If he cannot give editing polices my edits breach, and he additionally is unwilling to engage in attempts to reach consensus, he cannot expect to get his own way. Musiclover565 (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Life section?

I noticed that it's gone. Any reason?71.192.161.159 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Not gone. Renamed. See the "Off-court" section. Tennis expert (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the mention of her being friends with Camilla Belle is gone though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.161.159 (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If a creditable source can be found, I do not see any reason why their being friends should not be included. I think it goes without saying that the completely unconfirmed and most likely untrue rumours have no place in an encyclopaedia, though. Musiclover565 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

She seems to like Russian politician Putin (see "My top 10 list" > "My top 10 dream mixed double partners" on her official webpage [1]) is that worth mentioning? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maria Sharapova/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review comments

I will be reading the article during the next few days. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fail. The article cannot be reviewed because of an ongoing edit war. In addition the user who nominated it has been confirmed a {{CheckedPuppeteer}} so I do not trust the nomination. The article fails criterion 5: "Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Maria Sharapova/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

All the edit war/ sockpuppet vandalism which prevented it from achieving GA status has been removed. Personally i'm very impressed with this article. I would give it GA any day and I won't be surprised if it a FA come the end of this tennis season. I will read it thoroughly over the next couple of hours. Ogioh (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK not as good as fist suggested but still good. Will read article again and make my final decision.Ogioh (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Kept article is fine for GA but will need a bit of work before it gets near FA Ogioh (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold for a month to see if the edit war has actually ceased. I can see no evidence of anyone having been blocked. I attempted to perform GA2 but decided on a quickfail because of the article's instability. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(I don't understand the "transcluded" stuff; so, I'm copying and pasting an earlier post of mine from here.) Musiclover565 was just recently blocked for 12 hours, the most recent of several blocks for this user or his sockpuppets. Concerning this longstanding disruptive user, see, for example, this, this, this, this, this, and this. Tennis expert (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Poor quality of many articles

See here for discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiclover565 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review

In my opinion, this article is way below GA quality. There are many unsourced claims, a "notable matches" section (notable per whom?), a "quotes" section which is purely trivial, awful formatting, and many MOS breaches. I'm starting to fix it up but sources should be found, as a minimum, or else I'll take this back to GAR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Expert was asked back in August to explain the notable matches section. His defence as to why it should remain seemed to to consist of; editors decide what is notable enough to include in the article, therefore they can decide what is extra-notable within the article. I tried to explain the where this kind of thinking logically takes us, but he wasn't impressed. Of course editors must decide a scale of importance within the article (in deciding what should be in the lead paragraph for example), but setting aside a section especially for it seems a step too far.

Quite apart from the citing (which, all things considered, isn't that bad) my main gripe with this article is similar to a lot of sporting articles. Most of the text is a series of "and then"s followed by scores, which makes for the dullest of repetitive reading. If this is all the article aspires to then it would be better shown on a simple table of results. There must be a better way to summarise a year's tournaments. --Escape Orbit^(Talk) 21:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: your second concern, Escape Orbit - yes, one of my main gripes all along has been how Tennis expert's preferred version of the article has such a stilted writing style. I do genuinely believe that the version that I had put a lot of work into and various others since June had considerably more flow... but Tennis expert considered this writing style "unencyclopaedic" while refusing to elaborate on that. Then, last week, he did a drive-by revert of almost every edit since June, citing an apparent lack of "consensus" for the hundreds of edits performed since.

And yes, I've always felt Notable matches is unnecessary. Quite apart from the fact the qualification for the section is very much original research, I also feel the whole object of the section is pointless: most of what's written there is just re-hashing what is already in the main body of the article, and if it isn't already written, then why is something not notable enough for the main article but is notable enough for a "Notable matches" section? Very odd. But, when concerns about this were raised, tennis expert cited... you guessed it... a fantasy "consensus" as usual, and that was the end of it. The fact he gets to cite "consensus" as a way of killing off any discussion and compromise about content is so ridiculously ironic. Musiclover565 (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Creative writing, Escape Orbit, is always welcome in a Wikipedia article. If you don't like "and thens," then be bold and suggest an alternative word choice. If the information is too dull, then find citable but interesting quotes or commentary for incorporation in the article. Tennis expert (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well what this article needs is a decent peer review by people outside of the current thinking of a "consensus". Also, editors from outside of the WP:TENNIS should contribute. It still seems incomprehensible to me that WP:FOOTBALL has over 100 featured articles/lists and WP:TENNIS has 2 GAs, one of which is this one which should, if we're all honest, be delisted. Let's crack on and fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

More lies from you, Musiclover565. This is why you have been blocked twice and have severely tested the patience of our community. This last lie from you is one that you keep putting out there despite there being irrefutable proof that it is a lie, as has been pointed out to you on several occasions. I have never reverted "hundreds of edits performed since June." It's a complete fabrication for you to assert otherwise. I have simply restored the Maria Sharapova article to its consensus version before you started unilaterlly changing and deleting text over the objections of several editors and using edit-warring practices to enforce your sole opinion about the article. I also considered every edit made since June and incorporated those that fit (the vast majority), as I plainly described in my edit summaries. Aside from your frequent telling of falsehoods, you just don't seem to understand what "consensus" means and what it takes to prove that consensus exists, despite my trying to explain the concepts to you on many occasions. And for some reason, you continually accuse me of saying that consensus cannot be changed. All I have ever said, Musiclover565, is that when consensus exists to do something in "A" way, then doing something in "B" way is OK only if there is a new consensus to overturn the pre-existing consensus. One person, through a single edit or through edit warring, cannot change a pre-existing consensus. Hopefully, you now understand this concept. Tennis expert (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well let's just try to improve the article, yeah? This tired old "pre-existing consensus" seems to do nothing but prevent the article being improved. It's not GA quality at all. I'm going to put it up for GAR. To improve an article, you don't need to "overturn a consensus", you just need to make it better. This includes making the prose more engaging, eliminating WP:OR, correct and accurate citations. There's little wonder the tennis project has zero featured quality articles right now. More needs to be done, much much more. Perhaps a drive-by of WP:FOOTBALL would help - they have over 100 featured articles and lists, they collaborate, are open-minded and want nothing but to improve articles in their remit. Let's try doing a bit of that here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well let's just try to improve the article and respect WP:CONSENSUS simultaneously, ok? This tired old "ignore the existing consensus" seems to do nothing but promote violation of Wikipedia policy. Whether particular edits make an article better is itself an issue that has to be determined by consensus. And by the way, this is not a contest between various projects to see which has the most featured articles. There is no deadline for improving any of them. Tennis expert (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, the criteria you've "suggested" that are still POV. This is going to GAR. Raise your objections there. My edits have been intended to make the article neutral in tone, readable and factually cited. Your edits have been to simply reverse it to your own version again and again. No wonder the project has lost so many editors. No wonder the project has no featured content at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable matches section

I have removed this section. All Sharapova's matches in major tournaments are, by our definition, notable. To create an artificial subsection of this is OR or POV or both. Any matches that were in that section can be added to a prose flow of her career history, which is encyclopedic. A random collection of someone's personal estimation of her most important matches is not encyclopedic. --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article

The POINTy edit warring on this article is disruptive and unconstructive. It's in no-one's interest for the article to be protected, but that's the way this is headed. And inevitably, the wrong version will be protected, so please stop. --Dweller (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

First step would be to establish what consensus is, rather than repeatedly claiming edits are against it. I don't see any consensus on the matter of delinking dates, and as Dweller suggests, frequent reverts indicates that there is no consensus. Editors previously used them because they were in the MOS. Now the MOS says don't use them. I've no great preference either way, but would suggest that it is in Wikipedia's overall interests to have articles follow the MOS (whatever it says) as much as possible. There is no obvious reason I can think of why this article, or any tennis bio, should be an exception. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree.--HJensen, talk 18:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The dates are being linked by editors of the article, because they and I believe they add value. The dates are being removed by script-assited edits by uninvolved (content-wise) editors who are removing date links from Wikipedia wholesale. Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date autoformatting#Wrong where there is a proposal that would allow the benefits of consistently formated dates in the wikicode (the stated aim of the delinkers) and the benefits (listed there and elsewhere) of linked dates to co-exist without the need for editwarring. Also, please can you explain the term "POINTy" as it is not one that I am familiar with, thanks. My first is in ptarmigan (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being obscure. See WP:POINT --Dweller (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

MOS clearly states that dates should not be linked. If you disagree with MOS, debate it at the MOS talk page. Articles need to reflect MOS - editing against it is redolent of POINT. According to the current MOS, there's no special reason why any date in this article should be linked. I bid you success in your arguments at the MOS page, but please do not conduct your campaign for the change by editing articles - like this one. --Dweller (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Tennis expert is trying to enforce date autoformatting on tennis-related articles, which he owns, on the spurious basis that there is no consensus for its removal at WikiProject Tennis. His colleagues there are not of one voice on this, and our central styleguides (MOSLINK, MOSNUM, CONTEXT, MOS) all give the thumbs-down to DA. The proof of the pudding is that at FAC and FLC, it's a non-issue and nominators appear to be happily complying with the new practice. I believe there has not been one complaint. But then again, those nominators are aiming at a professsional standard. Tony (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Russian female models

Although involved in a lot of celebrity modeling, which is normal these days, I find it odd to include her in this category. The category is intended for professional models only. Thoughts? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 13:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Maria telling porkies about her weight?

Porkies (Cockney Rhyming Slang): Pork pies = Lies. I don't care what her official website says, if she weighs 59kg then I'm a ballerina. ~ Bighairything (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have a cite that can state her weight more authoritatively then feel free to use it. Failing that, your estimation of her weight is not relevant. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is relevant because if she's not telling porkies about her weight then she's telling porkies about her height (also a possibility). A glance at her and a little bit of common sense dictates that she can't be both 1.88m and 59.1kg unless she walks around in her own gravitational field, which would really screw with this. I can't find a more authoritative source, but surely it would be be better to remove the height and weight fields altogether rather than list measurements that are clearly false and attributed to a non-credible source. ~ Bighairything (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fansite tag

Please read the information in the tag and at WP:SUMMARY before simply removing information from this article. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that "every match, every score, every tiebreak" she ever played is listed in this article? I believe that exaggerated edit summaries should be avoided because they are unconstructive and don't help anyone to improve articles. Tennis expert (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I seriously believe that any article I have tagged with {{fansite}} needs a lot of work. I think you're making rather a mountain out of a molehill regarding the edit summaries, people seeking to help improve the articles are much more likely to look at the article itself rather than the edit summary history. I'm not even sure "unconstructive" is a real word. The real issue is that these articles are way off the standard required to make either good or featured article and that should be the aim for every article here, as I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for changing your edit summaries to be more constructive. For your edification, you can find "unconstructive" in this online dictionary. Thanks also for again assuming my bad faith. When will you stop doing that? And what Wikipedia policy requires every article to achieve good or featured status? Tennis expert (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness for American spelling! Nothing suggests articles are required to achieve GA or FA status, but you must agree that we're here to make an excellent encyclopedia and it's generally agreed that both good and featured articles are something we should strive for, not deliberately avoid. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Status

Iv recently created a new acount here on wiki. When I am able to edit protected pages again I will be working extensively on this page. I am a huge fan of Sharapova's but have never really participated in her wiki before. However, I won't stop fixing it until its GA status. It's main problem right now s that it over detailed. It should be very detailed and thorough but unimportant stuff shouldn't be emphasised. I look forward to working with you all in trying t geet this article to GA staus in the near future. OgiBear (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PRESERVE. Tennis expert (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

cleanup of 5 May

I have made a number of cleanup changes to the article using some 20 separate edits to ensure maximum transparency of the changes. The modifications include consolidations of sentences and paragraphs, removal of redundant words, phrases, and not very biographically significant details or quotations etc. I also removed some quite substantial overlinking to all and sundry terms which do not warrant linking or repeated linking, and I have undone some overly aggressive piping. I believe that these changes all improve the article's focus by sharpening the prose. I hope that these changes will not be reverted in one fell swoop, but treated with good faith. I am aware that the changes could well be undone with a single cavalier mouse-click with the edit summary "no consensus", "WP:PRESERVE" or "WP:STALK". I come in peace and rest in hope, fingers crossed. Kindly discuss first before reverting, in whole or in part. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it seems that I might as well not have bothered writing the above - hours of grunt work undone in a flash! Whilst there were some useful changes, most of the stuff I cleaned up was put back in one fell swoop with an edit summary saying it should belong. I'm most disappointed, but I'm going to look through the changes carefully so as not to be accused of blindly reverting. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What you did violates WP:PRESERVE, makes the article incomplete, and introduces serious grammatical and factual errors into the text. I suggest that you not engage in blind reversions and that you respect WP:BRD, which you have not done so far. Tennis expert (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A version of the article that omits all the problems introduced and perpetuated by Ohconfucius can be found here. Tennis expert (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're doing, Tennis expert. But rather than adding ugly tags all over the article, would it not be better if you stated what you feel has been omitted and what is grammatically and factually wrong? The problem with the article, as was before Ohconfucius's edits, was it was over-long and flabby. Ohconfucius's contributions, while not perfect, can be seen as a step in the right direction in what is a quite daunting task. If you don't like Ohconfucius's contributions, can you still agree that the article does need worked over? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I don't agree at all. Before the problematic Ohconfucius came along, the article was stable, represented our longstanding consensus, and was not too long or "flabby". I already have expressed, through my comprehensive edits, the problems I have with Ohconfucius's edits. He ignored and reverted them (and disregarded WP:BRD). There's not much more I can do. The "ugly" tags are justified and should remain. Tennis expert (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles can be 'stable' and still too long and/or not well-written, which this article was/is IMO. AlonsornunezComments 23:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, having gone through the changes again I do think that Ohconfucius' changes are a big step in the right direction, the right direction of course being a well-written article that qualifies for GA/FA status. Nice work. AlonsornunezComments 00:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly disagree about the importance of the locations of the tournaments, and would say there's no obvious need to "locate" each tournament. The wikilinks to each tournament should provide sufficient information. It appears that the "locations missing" tags which were placed there were not in the best of faith, and I believe ought to be removed.

  A more serious charge is that I deliberately introduced a factual error into the 2005-06 section. I, nor anyone, can possibly object to correction of factual errors. I am not saying that the fact I posted was necessarily correct, although I try my best. However, I suspect it was but one of many changes in the section Tenex removed 'en bloc' but which I restored because I could not see what was wrong with it. Tennis expert's tagging of the section for that error can only be described as capricious, as Tenex never drew my attention to the specific error I had introduced. He could have corrected it himself while leaving the other format/linking changes intact. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You really should be more careful and stop making blind reversions. The error should have been obvious even to you (24 versus 19), which means that you didn't actually look before reverting. Or were you just being careless in the mad rush to protect your work? If so, perhaps you should ask someone to tag behind you to review all your edits and correct errors as you go. Maybe you could hire someone to do that. Tennis expert (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yet more accusations of bad faith. Don't tell me you never overlooked a small detail... Ohconfucius (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick note, this is a charity, we don't get paid to do this work. Hopefully I've fixed the error, so no real damage done. And it isn't a quiz, you could have fixed it really quite simply without tagging the article. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but you really should take your own advice about the tagging. Tennis expert (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but the articles I tagged had numerous issues throughout the whole article (e.g. excessive intricate detail) or obvious problems within sections (e.g. lack of references, trivia lists). And when I tagged POV, I clearly listed on the talk page the problems I thought existed. I didn't just tag a huge section for a tiny error which would have taken less time for you to fix then the ten minutes it spent me trying to find. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but I did fix the problem and tagged it only after Ohconfucius blind revert warred to preserve his version of the article, in ignorance of the preexisting consensus. Why don't you take up your issues with your ally for a change, like a decent bureaucrat/administrator would? Tennis expert (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you and Ohconfucius were up to. I saw the error tag, read your comment, attempted through diffs to locate the problem, which took a while, and fixed it. All I'd suggest is that for all this hot air, you could have fixed the single 2 character error in two seconds, and saved us all some trouble. And please try to restrict your sarcastic and bad faith comments. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the recent changes to the article are a fantastic step in the right direction. I think the writing style could still use a bit of work (it's still a little bit too "and then.... and then", though not as much as before), but that can hopefully also be improved with the collaboration of editor. I definitely fully agree with the general streamlining of the article and removal of irrelevant information. 92.0.235.202 (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

While I commend the cleanup undertaken, I feel like I should point of slight POVs in section titles for years, such as 2005–06: Top form. I don't see the need to make section title this opinionated, whether it is true or not. Same goes with 2004: First Grand Slam tournament championship. Undue importance to a single victory in the section title. I'm not saying these are incorrect or anything like that. Simply, I think the section titles should be kept free of such comments. ^LeaveSleaves 15:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Career history fork

In the interests of balancing the needs of creating a professional-class article with the obsession to never removing a single detail, I have forked off her professional life to Maria Sharapova career history. Further radical copyediting will take place to bring this to WP:FAC. I hope there will be no more drama as a result of this article. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What's with the proliferation of versions of this article?

• Talk:Maria Sharapova/Tennis expert's recommendation ‎
• User:Tennis expert/Maria Sharapova

Ohconfucius (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion at the foot of Talk:Maria Sharapova/Tennis expert's recommendation and the page's edit history. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the short exchanges tell me little except that Tennis expert believes that version (I suspect they are identical but haven't checked) should prevail, and that Tennis expert somehow wants to keep them where they are. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• I have checked, and the two are exactly the same. There appears little reason to keep this one. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

One is in my space for principally my use as a sandbox. The other is in main space. Both should be kept. Tennis expert (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why we need to keep your "recommendation" in the mainspace otherwise I will delete it. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As an involved administrator, I suggest that you go through the deletion review process before acting unilaterally. Tennis expert (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Could you explain why we need your "recommendation" in the mainspace when your various sandboxes would fulfill this role perfectly? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Tennis expert (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're deliberately refusing to answer the question. For the third time, explain why you are using the mainspace as your own sandbox please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see no evidence of this page being "...a very recent and previous version of the article that is being considered for reinstatement by the editors of the article..." per your comment. Please expand. And per your comment, "deletion review" is usually used after an article is deleted, not beforehand. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit too much 'forking off' for my liking - a recipe for confusion, so the following discussion has been moved from User talk:Tennis expert#Question about a subpage: Ohconfucius (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about a subpage

Hello. I was going through the speedy deletion candidates when I ran across Talk:Maria Sharapova/Tennis expert's recommendation. I'm not sure why this page is located where it is, but I think it may be better suited as a subpage in your userspace. Would you like me to move it for you? TNXMan 01:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask administrator Someguy1221 why he moved the page there. Tennis expert (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I have done so and asked him to comment here. TNXMan 02:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I only moved it to the talk page to get it out of the mainspace. If this really is going to be just a record of what you think the article should look like, then I agree that it belongs better in your userspace. The choice of a subpage in talkspace versus userspace was not meant as an assertion that it should stay there. If that version is being proposed as a draft to be worked on until a consensus arises on the changes, then that's a perfectly appropriate use of a talk subpage. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

MfD

Talk:Maria Sharapova/Tennis expert's recommendation has now been listed for deletion here. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RECONSTRUCTION

This article seriously needs to be sorted out. Personally I don't see the point of Maria Sharapova career history. It makes this article bland and seem like it has detail. Also, its basically jut this article on a different page with a tad more detail. Surely we can settle for keeping the one page. The level of detail the page should include, in my opinion, should be halfway between what it is now and the career history article. Yes, every score doesn't have to be listed but the page shouldn't be a bore to read. If four or five of us here just got together, each contributed to reworking this article by working together, it would be GA in no time at all. To my knowledge tennis expert is gone o we should face little problems in giving this article some quality. OgiBear (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• The career history article was created so that we could work quietly on the main article without sniping and disruption from certain parties opposed to the excision of the small detail. I have now put it up for WP:PROD. However, if you still want to use it, perhaps we should userfy it instead? Ohconfucius (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3