User talk:ForzaUV/sandbox

Review

• Lede
  • MUCH better than existing. Solid description of the term
  • Still think the ATP/WTA lines are awkward; "Grand Slam tournaments are operated by the International Tennis Foundation (ITF), instead of the more common Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) or the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) organizations, but both professional tennis organizations do award ranking points based on player performance."
  • I like explaining the timing throughout the year and court differences here.
  • not sure about the "Skipping the Australian" part in the lede. Besides, you have it below also...
• Origin/History
  • 1st part is good. Should the three previous championships be bulleted?
  • The "Phil Dent" paragraph should probably only be the first line. It is wholly unclear why the list of names is there. Is this a list of people that "might" have won a Grand Slam (if only they belonged to the NTL? - "employed a number of top players"... Also, "what" was won by Author Ashe? the NTL? or the Australian for that year?
• 2) Tournaments:
  • LOL, Solid verbiage...kudos.
  • love the addition of "locations" for clarity.
• 3) The Tournaments (should Each one be a lvl1 header? You are already under tournaments...and they are summaries. maybe lvl2. LOVE the links to the history articles.
  • Australian - Good. Just clarity on how/why it became a "slam"
  • French - An abrupt end. I agree they should be short, but really should include the WWII gap, and end with "Today... currently played at, etc." I would replace the 3rd (which should be on the history page) with the last 100 years...?
  • Wimbledon - actually pretty good except for the odd spacing in the middle. But again, should briefly get through the last 100 years.
  • US Open - a bit too detailed. P#4) add when the included mixed. Were they the first to add Wheelchair? Condense P#5 to "after a contentious vote, it was moved to xxx." Basically, this should be about one line for every history section in the history article...ending with "today..."
• 3b) maybe we should just summarize: 1) When did it start, 2) interuptions, location and/or court changes 3) when events were added; since they all started with men only, and maybe recent attendance? Part of the purpose of these four sections would be to illustrate WHY they became "Majors" and/or why winning each one ALONE is a pretty big deal.

7 Completion/Achievers

• • So, the table is a bit of a problem. If I only care about Singles, I sort by Discipline...and get? Boys' singles, Men are 3rd, Women are 8th... Need to rig this to be "Singles, Men's" and "Singles, Women's"...?
  • Sorting by Name, is by "Flag" name?
  • ALL years should be links to their relative articles. This does not fall under the overlinking rule, as they are mostly different year/tournament combinations.
• Non-calendar year
  • Some problems with the 5th paragraph. The "I.T.F." stood out, I had to read it twice to figure out it was a quote. Probably long enough to use <quote>
  • The paragraph leading into this table talks about 8 people and 11 instances, but there are 21 rows... I assume it is due to wheelchair events?
  • I actually think this set of columns is a bit easier to read
  • I still wish for a better way to sort "discipline"

NOTE: Is Singles an Event, Discipline,

• About now, I noticed the plethora of citation needed tags, but a number of these are NOT needed when merely a summary of the following table...right? also, the individual entries don't need to be cited, as they are linked to the page that shows the data with the citation.

• Career - don't agree with the complete drop of this section - it's even in the NavBox...?

At the very least, the dropped sections should be in an article 'other types of grand slams' or something

• 7.Across Disciplines
  • Joe Tennis thinks these should be singled out as an incredible feat. Joe Reader finds it very, very hard to find the three "W's" in a row.. Maybe a different background?
  • Is 7.2 supposed to be across their career?
• Boxed Set
  • Joe Reader is slightly confused about how this relates to the section they just read. It should be noted "how" it relates
• Golden Slam - again, this one is a pretty big deal
  • Good section; Joe WP Editor is disappointed that there are years with no links (because the articles do not exist)...sigh.

Other Tennis Slams

• Super Slam - not part of common vernacular ...yet
• Three-Quarter Slam - Ok, this is just a list of people that did not make it. - I am actually fine with this one being dropped.
• Surface slam - even a Tennis Junkie has never heard of this one.
• Channel slam - Only Europeans would come up with this.
• Triple Crown - I never understood the difference between this and "cross discipline"
• Pro slam - probably worth the one paragraph
• See Also - when did the "records" page get the "-" in the middle? Doesn't seem to be prevalent across other "records" pages?
• Should there be a section about "OPEN" records? Meaning the player is not retired or has won 3 consecutive this "open" into the next tournament? or (for career) won all BUT this one? (or two)?
• I never noticed the "Major tennis tournaments" navbox, but I think it is redundant... "It's on my ToDo list"...

No reason to stand on tradition; feel free to add your comments per section above. (I think comments per section help) Mjquinn_id (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)