Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kim Clijsters/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2019 [1].

Kim Clijsters

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Kim Clijsters, the first Belgian tennis player to hold the world No. 1 ranking. Active from 1997–2012, Clijsters has been ranked as the 14th greatest women's tennis player in the Open Era. She is perhaps most famous for retiring at the age of 23, only to come back and become one of the few players to win a Grand Slam singles title as a mother.

I have re-written the entire article over the past six months, and it has passed its GA review. I have written eight other GAs for the Tennis WikiProject, but this is the one I have spent the most time on. There are two other tennis FAs (Milos Raonic and the 1877 Wimbledon Championship). If promoted, the article would be just the eighth Women's sport biography FA, the first since 2014, and by far the most notable of the group. I am hoping to have this article ready to be a TFA by June 8th, and I recognize the window for that opportunity is closing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review


Comments from Hmlarson

Overall
  • This is a very good article. It is really well-written and sourced. Nice work! Here are a few initial comments. I'll add some more as I go along.
Lead
  • "Clijsters is a former world No. 1 in both singles and doubles..." Consider changing to something like: Clijsters ranked No.1 in the world in singles from ____ to ____ and doubles from _____ to _____, if possible.
    • This won't work because she had four brief separate reigns at No. 1 across three non-consecutive years. Nonetheless, I added in the next paragraph that she first became No. 1 in 2003, and the third paragraph already mentions she becomes No. 1 again in 2011. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clijsters played in an era where her primary rivals..." Consider changing to something like: Clisjsters competed professionally from ____ to ___ in an era where her primary rivals...
  • "Born to athletic parents with backgrounds in professional football and gymnastics, Clijsters was renowned for her own athleticism." Consider removing the first part of the sentence before the comma in the lead and "her own". It detracts from her accomplishments + is really more supporting info (not primary).
Other work
Coaching + Broadcasting career
Nonprofit Ten4Kim
  • Consider for inclusion.

ref 1 ref 2

Entrepreneur
Awards
Coaches
Personal life

Hmlarson (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Figureskatingfan

Overall

Very well-done and thorough article about an important figure in women's tennis. I'm not at all familiar with tennis, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances, but I was able to come up with a few picky points.

2003...
  • Clijsters had a historic season in 2003. The word "historic" feels pidgeony to me. I suggest that you find a source that expresses the same or a similar sentiment, and if not, that you remove it.
Hopman Cup
  • Is it necessary to explain how this tournament is run? You don't make similar explanations for other tournaments like Wimbledon. If we can click on the link to find that information about Wimbledon, we can do the same for the Hopman Cup, right?
    • I wanted to explain the format because as a team competition, it's relatively complicated compared to the individual tournaments. I wouldn't expect even a regular tennis fan to be familiar with it, and I feel like you need to understand the format for the next paragraph to make any sense. I don't explain individual tournaments because aside they all have the same standard bracket format, which is also much simpler. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clijsters vs. Henin
  • Clijsters's biggest rival was Justine Henin, who grew up in the French-speaking part of Belgium. They have been regarded as having little in common except their nationality and their relationship has varied over time. I don't see either statement directly supported by ref 172. Of course, they can be inferred by the SMH article, but I'm not sure that's enough for a FA. I suggest changing the wording to better reflect the SMH source, or any other that discusses the rivalry.
    • I'm taking the first part of the second sentence from "despite the fact the Belgians are indivisible in the public estimation in their homeland, sometimes it seems that all they have in common is their nationality." Was that what you were concerned about? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! I'm ready to support when the above points are addressed, or when you explain why they shouldn't change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Figureskatingfan! I addressed all of your comments. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, my pleasure. I love reviewing articles because I get to read about stuff I know nothing about. I'm satisfied with your response above about the Hopman Cup; it makes total sense. Nice job; I will now SUPPORT. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Quality and reliability: The article is amply referenced, using a mixture of local and national news reports, on and offline magazine articles, some dedicated tennis websites, and major broadcasters such as BBC and CNN. Overall the mix is much what I would expect to find in a major tennis article, and in my view meets the required standards of quality and reliability.
  • Verification: Spotchecks – I carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification and close paraphrasing. Mostly these checked out, but a few raise minor issues:
  • Ref 15 - ARTICLE: "She won two junior Grand Slam doubles titles, the French Open with Jelena Dokic and the US Open with Eva Dyrberg". SOURCE: The US Open victory with Dyrberg is not mentioned in the source
  • Ref 102 - ARTICLE: "Clijsters entered 2007 intending to retire at the end of the season, but only played in five tournaments due to injuries." SOURCE: No mention of restricting her appearances to five, or of other factors that limited her appearances, e.g. marriage.
  • I moved the source to clarify it is just for the first part of the sentence, added the book source to the end of the sentence, and re-worded the second part to clarify that she only ended up playing five tournaments (which wasn't her plan). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 142 - ARTICLE: "She needed to retire from a fourth round match at the Indian Wells Open due to a shoulder injury. Then, as a result of a right ankle injury suffered while dancing at a wedding in April, the French Open was the only clay court event she entered. At the second Grand Slam tournament of the year, she was upset in the second round by No. 114 Arantxa Rus after failing to convert two match points in the second set." SOURCE: The information relating to Indian Wells is not covered in the source.
  • External links: All links to sources are working according to the external links checker tool.
  • Formatting: A few issues:
  • There is a general issue around italicisation of organisations such as ESPN, CNN, CBC, ABC, Reuters and BBC (there may be others). You have used the parameter "website=" in the template, but these organisations are not websites, they are the publishers of the website and should not be in italics. In such cases use the parameter "publisher=", which will automatically de-italicise.
  • Some of the New York Times articles are only available on subscription. You need to check these and where appropriate add the (subscription required) template.
  • Ref 10: state tha the source language is French
  • Ref 81: you should clarify that the publication is the New York Sun, not to be confused with the British tabloid.
  • Ref 214 Bodo 2010 lacks page reference. What is the significance of the added date?
  • Ref 246: source article title missing
  • Ref 249: What does "bekroningen" signify?

Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC) (For the purposes of clarification I did the review, not the responses)[reply]

Thanks, Brianboulton! I replied to all of your comments above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]

Will post comments ASAP. Long article, so lots to read! :) ceranthor 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "Clijsters was a world No. 1 in both singles and doubles, having once held both rankings simultaneously." - think it would be worthwhile mentioning when she held both
  • " were compatriot Justine Henin and 23-time Grand Slam singles champion Serena Williams." - not sure you have to include the number of times Serena won Grand Slams; not necessary IMO
    • I wanted to say "compatriot Justine Henin and Serena Williams, one of the greatest players of all-time", but I feel like that is too subjective for the lead. I felt like writing "23-time Grand Slam singles champion" is a more objective way to say something along the same lines. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coming from a country with limited success in men's or women's tennis, she" - obviously it's implied that you're talking about Clijsters, but since you refer to three female-identifying players in the previous sentence I'd use Clijsters instead of "she" here

Professional career

  • "Clijsters continued to excel at the ITF level, winning four more titles within the next year, two in each of singles and doubles.[9][17]" - "two in each of" is wordy; one or two of these words need to be cut but not totally sure which
  • "Clijsters began 1999 ranked No. 420 in singles.[18]" - in which ranking list, exactly?
  • "entering the main draw as a lucky loser after losing in the final round of qualifying." - is "lucky loser" an idiom or an actual tennis term? I have never heard it used, but if it's an idiom it should be rephrased because I think they should be avoided in encyclopedia articles
    • It is a tennis term, referring to a player who makes the main draw after losing in qualifying due to a different player in the main draw withdrawing from the tournament after qualifying already began. I added the wikilink to the lucky loser page. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After barely getting a spot in the qualifying draw," - wait, why is this? Elaborate?
  • "With her success, Clijsters became the first Belgian world No. 1 in each of singles and doubles.[18]" - same note as above
  • "She extended her tour win streak to 17 matches—all of which without dropping a set[17]" - don't need the "of which" I don't think
  • "she needed to retire from that match as well after twisting her ankle down a break in the third set " - is "down" meant to be "during?"

The other sections looked fine. This is a well-written and engaging article, and I'll be happy to support it per 1a once my comments are addressed. ceranthor 19:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ceranthor! I replied to each comment above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: All fine except the one I responded to above. Support per 1a. ceranthor 13:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change above. Sportsfan77777 (talk)

23:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Overall, a great article. Well written and referenced. Will be happy to support. I have a few comments:

  • "Her father Lei was a professional football defender" Can we link football here? I had no idea what code they play in Belgium.
  • "world No. 1" Should "world" be capitalised? Or should "No. 1" not? I'm inclined to the latter, per the article in question, but "No. x" is used consistently throughout the article.
  • "Clijsters's rivalry with Serena included two of the biggest controversies in Serena's career, the 2001 Indian Wells final which led to both Williams sisters' long boycott of the tournament and the 2009 US Open semifinal which Serena lost on a point penalty." Comma after "tournament".
  • The word "longtime" seems a bit over-used.
  • Looking at the Career statistics, they are sourced to [2] but this does not cover all the information presented. I there a missing source?
    • I added her WTA profile as a second source. I believe they both cover everything. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The WTA profile is a little better in that lists not just the titles, but also the finals (and counts both). It also has the overall W–L records for each Grand Slam. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • With the ITF profile, the performance timelines can be found under the "Grand Slam Singles" and "Grand Slam Doubles" tabs. The year-end rankings and a list of titles are on the default "Biography" tab. The individual match results for the Grand Slam finals (including opponents) can be found under the "Activity" tab, but you need to click on "View All". Otherwise, it just shows matches from the most recent 52 weeks (which is silly for retired players who haven't played recently...). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • From looking at her WTA profile, I caught two errors in the singles performance timeline. First, I corrected the number of finals in 1999 (and the total). Second, her total number of wins at Wimbledon was one too high (due to a walkover match win in 2006, which doesn't officially count as a win towards her W–L record). I believe everything else is correct. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional portals: Belgium, Biography, Olympics, Women's sports.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Hawkeye7! I addressed each of the comments above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks great to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kim_Clijsters/archive1&oldid=892503548"