Talk:Mikhail Youzhny/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) 18:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per tennis guidelines, all scores should be removed from prose unless it's an event of epic proportions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only the most important scores remain. --TIAYN (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked and there are still 50–100 scores listed. In prose there should be none unless it sets some sort of record. I'll get to it when I can or perhaps someone else from tennis project can fix it. The article is a little too heavy on detail, so each section under "career" could easily be condensed. The weight for Davis Cup, Olympics, playing style and personal looks good. I might have dumped one or two of the photos from his later career and added one or two from his jr and early career for balance. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just came back to this and noticed no changes in the things mentioned. I took it upon myself to correct the prose scores to Tennis Project guidelines. The article is still way too detailed. Routine wins and defeats need not be mentioned at all, just the round of defeat or tournament victory, and to whom. Each player can be mentioned in a grand slam tournament, though the nationality of the other player is rarely notable. It's always good to have another tennis article at GA quality and if we can just condense this page it will be a good choice. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you wrote "I'll get to it when I can or perhaps someone else from tennis project can fix it." ... But I'll fix it. --TIAYN (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is 100% true. And I didn't get to it nor did anyone from the project. Sorry. I did just fix the scoring and I'll do my best tomorrow to trim some detail so you can better see where I'm coming from. If I trim a single section and you want different wording, I have no problems with that at all. All we really want is highlights. Obviously highlights in his first year might include minor tournaments that wouldn't be listed in later years unless he actually won the event. It really would be nice for this player to be given GA status. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no images of him early in his career, and yes, I can condense it. --TIAYN (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to keep an eye out for public domain early photos. I edited years 2004-2007, mostly removing unneeded nationalities and rankings. I added a few names for the Majors and removed a few names from minor events. This encompasses 4 years. The next two sections only encompass 3 years each yet they are far longer. They should usually be shorter than 2004-2007. If people want to read fine details, that's what the refs are for. I also, if possible, put the refs at the end of sentences to stop the paragraph from looking too cluttered. Probably a personal preference there. When I look at the "Playing Style" section I see a lot of reference number 2. I don't think you need that ref at the end of every sentence. If the sentences are all from one source I think a single ref after all of them should suffice. Gotta run. Good luck. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status?

It has been nearly three weeks since the previous review and edits from the reviewer. In that time, the nominator has edited widely on Wikipedia, yet not made a single edit to this article to address the very real issues raised. Under the circumstances, I don't see any point in keeping the review open any longer. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to note the same thing after seeing the lack of anything earlier this week. Since that remains the case, I'm closing this. Wizardman 03:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]