Talk:Kim Clijsters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleKim Clijsters is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 8, 2019.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 14, 2019Good article nomineeListed
April 14, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 8, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Barbie doll[edit]

Where's the mention she got a Barbie doll of herself and Jada? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranking[edit]

Her current ranking is wrongly listed. She is No.3, not No. 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.190.218 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link[edit]

^ SportsIllustrated.cnn.com, Father of Kim Clijsters Dies, 4 January 2009 billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why protect this page[edit]

Some information is wrong: Wozniacki holds the record of number of weeks "Slamless" number one as she is number one since October 9th 2010. Besides this ridiculous record is demeaning. Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.66.210.36 (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections to article Kim Clijsters[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Clijsters

1) correction needed in year section 1999

"She defeated tenth ranked Amanda Coetzer en route to the quarter finals"

should become

"She defeated tenth ranked Amanda Coetzer en route to the fourth round"

2) correction needed in last record tabular section under Records ("these records were attained in the Open Era of tennis)

August – November 2003 Most weeks at world #1 prior to winning first Grand Slam singles title (12) Stands alone

should be removed

because

i) info is incorrect: "record" is in hands of Wozniacki who has been number one now since October 9th 2010 (hence more than 12 weeks)

ii) Record is dubious in itself and hardly adds any credit to a player who has won 4 slams and became number one at different times throughput her career

87.66.210.36 (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for framing the request correctly. Shearonink (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That photo is crap - get a better one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.162.157 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Coast To Coast Double[edit]

I think it's worth mentioning that she became only the second woman to win Indian Wells and Key Biscane back to back. Steffi Graf completed this feat before her in 1994 and 1996. Clijsters was unranked while doing so in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.226.220 (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries[edit]

Why are her matches against Vera Zvonareva mentioned in the rivalries section? For the Henin-Clijsters it's obvious why but for the Zvonareva-Clijsters it isn't. I mean she had more head-to-head against Lindsay Davenport (17), Amélie Mauresmo (15), Elena Dementieva (14) and Venus Williams (13). --Sofffie7 (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

equipment[edit]

What racquet adid she use prior to 1999? Also, what strings did she use? 24.33.93.239 (talk) 05:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kim Clijsters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 20:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shall spare the time to review this entry. MWright96 (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Early life and background[edit]

  • "and her mother for giving her a gymnast's flexibility." - how about providing to avoid close reptition of the same word?
    • I don't think "providing" works since she's not literally providing something. I can't think of an alternative. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, changed it to "Clijsters credits her parents for giving her a footballer's legs and a gymnast's flexibility." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tweaked the wording to avoid repetition of "giving." Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From then on, she became hooked on the sport." - informal; fixated is better

Junior career[edit]

  • "A year later, she then won the 12-and-under singles event at the same tournament." - "then" is redundant here
  • "finishing the season at career high rankings of world No. 11 in singles" - career-high

1997–99: Maiden WTA title, Newcomer of the Year[edit]

2000–02: French Open finalist, Tour champion[edit]

  • "in Germany near the end of the season." - near its conclusion.
    • I changed the former instance of "season" to "year" instead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2003: World No. 1 in singles and doubles[edit]

  • "as the pair faced off eight times," - contested each other

Singles: Two Grand Slam finals, Tour Championship defense[edit]

  • "in part because top-ranked Serena Williams had not played on tour" - because the top-ranked
  • "and Henin's lengthy semifinal the previous day." - semifinal match

Doubles: French Open and Wimbledon titles[edit]

  • "Clijsters and Sugiyama defeated top seeds Ruano Pascual and Suarez in both finals" - defeated the top seeds
  • "but withdrew in the second round due to rain delaying Sugiyama's fourth round singles match several days." - for how many days exactly was the match delayed for?

2004–05: Extended injury absence, first Grand Slam singles title[edit]

Two-year hitatus[edit]

  • Wikilink exhibition to Exhibition game
  • "against Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi to test the new roof on Centre Court at Wimbledon." - I believe it should be made clear that the roof was retractable

2009–10: Start of second career, back-to-back US Open titles[edit]

  • "Clijsters tore a muscle in her foot," - which of Clijsters's foot was it?
  • "Clijsters planned a limited schedule for 2010 to keep her focus on her family and ended up playing just eleven tournaments" - retain a focus

2011–12: Australian Open champion, last reign at No. 1[edit]

  • "This title turned out to be the last of Clijsters's career." - try transpired
    • Changed to "This title would be the last of Clijsters's career". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then, as a result of an ankle injury suffered while dancing at a wedding in April," - right ankle injury
  • "Her hip and ankle both continued to trouble her for months after the tournament," - Both her right hip and left ankle

Fed Cup[edit]

  • "Each tie was played as best-of-five rubbers," - to the

Hopman Cup[edit]

  • "Clijsters participated in the Hopman Cup from 2001–04," - 2001–2004
    • It's the other one (2002–05 in the Fed Cup section) that is not consistent. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they finished tied for first with the United States and Italy in group that also featured France." - in a group

Olympics[edit]

  • "However, she had announced the before the year began that she did not intend to compete at the Games" - remove the first "the" in this section of text
  • Wikilink Belgium at the Olympics
  • Wikilink Rosmalen Grass Court Championships to 2012 UNICEF Open

Clijsters vs. Henin[edit]

  • Wikilink performance-enhancing drugs to Performance-enhancing substance
  • "The latest stage win Clijsters had at a major was in the semifinals of the 2001 French Open." - major competition
    • Since the four biggest events in tennis (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and US Open) are called "majors" (just like in golf), I'm not sure that changing it to "major competition" is the correct thing to do. The equivalent of "major" is "Grand Slam tournament," so that could also be used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's just "major", a synonym for "Grand Slam tournament". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibition matches[edit]

  • "the Diamond Games were revived as a WTA tournament with Clijsters serving as the tournament director." - reptition of "tournament"; try a similar neutral word
    • Changed former to "event".

Legacy[edit]

  • "and her three such titles are tied with Margaret Court for the most all-time." - the most of all-time.

Playing style[edit]

  • "Clijsters often kept points alive with her signature shot," - try to use a word more formal than "alive"
  • Wikilink forehand, backhand, volley and groundstroke to their respective articles for non-Tennis readers

Coaches[edit]

  • "during which she won the Fed Cup and finished runner-up at the 2001 French Open." - and finished the runner-up
  • "Clijsters won three more Grand Slam singles titles and regained the No. 1 ranking." - world No. 1 ranking.

Personal life[edit]

  • "The two of them met while Lynch was a member of Euphony Bree," - change the text in bold to The two met to make it slightly shorter
  • "she was in a longterm relationship with Australian tennis player Lleyton Hewitt." - long-term
  • "and made her popular among Australian tennis fans even after their split." - separation for variety

References[edit]

  • Reference 39 is lacking the author of the article
  • You need the page on which the story on Clijsters appears on and the author of the article in Reference 82
  • References 66, 83 and 222 are missing Agence France-Presse as the agency who provided the organisations with the story
  • Reference 107 is missing the author and Associated Press as the agency who provided The Washington Post with the article
  • Reference 152 should include Associated Press as the news wire who gave ESPN with the article
  • Reference 233 needs to show that it can only be assessed with a subscription

Nice job with re-writing Kim Clijsters' article. Does her career and person justice. Only minor quibbles are present in the article. MWright96 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, MWright96! I've addressed everything above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mother with three ??[edit]

Would someone who knows what's going on clarify the following sentence in the intro? Three what? Children? Titles?

"she also holds the record for most Grand Slam singles titles won as a mother with three and was the first to win"

Finney1234 (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Three titles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comeback[edit]

Looks like she's out of retirement, and aiming to play the French Open this year, yet the entire article still uses the past tense as far as her tennis career is concerned. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big problem with the use of "The Williams sisters are widely recognized as dominating tennis since around the turn of the century"[edit]

First "widely" tends to be a weasel word we try to stay away from since it's tough to source. Also, dominance is very relative since the turn of the century (Jan, 1 2001). Venus Williams has been No. 1 for 11 weeks out of 1000 weeks of tennis. Year-end No.1... zero times. Serena has done much much better with 319 weeks at No. 1 out of about 1000 weeks, where Davenport and Henin were only 215 weeks combined. Serena Williams was WTA No. 15 different years, but 14 years she wasn't year-end No. 1. Henin was YE No.1 three years and retired as such. Davenport 3 years, Wozniacki 2 years and Halep 2 years. All since the turn of the century. Certainly Major titles look different. Venus won five this century (4 at Wimbledon and none for 12 years). She has NOT dominated since the turn of the century as the statement infers. Serena has won 22 majors this century and that IS impressive! This is out of 77 majors played. An argument can certainly be had for saying she is the most dominant player this century. Henin won 7 majors, Sharapova won 5 majors, Venus had 5 majors, Clijsters won 4, and bunches have two or three majors. The women's events have been far more open to different winner than the men's side of the aisle, where three or four have ruled the roost. I tried to change the wording to something softer but it was rejected. I'm open to something different than I chose but we have to be realistic when writing this paragraph. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sources agree with you. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leading tennis journalist Steve Tignor thinks this statement is so obvious he doesn't even try to argue it, saying in 2018 that, "It wasn’t until the end of the century, and the rise of Venus and Serena, that African-Americans came to dominate the sport." Source #1
  • The New York Times source used in the article already says, "For a sizable portion of nearly two transformative decades, one family surname has competitively dominated tennis and continually inundated its news." Source #2
  • In 2009, the Telegraph stated, "The joke doing the rounds is that WTA stands for the Williams Tennis Association. And, during the Wimbledon fortnight, you cannot argue with the supposition that one family runs the women's game." Source #3
  • Tennis.com has stated, "We haven't seen them play together in a while, but that doesn't change the fact that they were the most dominant doubles team in women's tennis history." Source #4
  • ESPN states, "The Williams sisters are the measure of the women's game". Source #5
Why might they think that? Individually since they began playing, the Williams sisters are No. 1 and No. 2 in three major career achievements: Grand Slam singles titles, total WTA singles titles, and total prize money. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WTA Tour leaders (since Williams sisters began playing)
Category No. 1 Count No. 2 Count Next Count
Grand Slam singles titles United States Serena Williams 23 United States Venus Williams 7 Belgium Justine Henin 7 (tied)
WTA singles titles United States Serena Williams 73 United States Venus Williams 49 Belgium Justine Henin 43
Prize money United States Serena Williams $92,715,122 United States Venus Williams $41,801,056 Russia Maria Sharapova $38,777,962
  • Additionally, they have both won Olympic gold medals in women's singles (Venus in 2000, and Serena in 2012).
  • Beyond that, they also competed in 8 Grand Slam singles finals against each other, including a record four in a row in 2002 and 2003 (the next most frequent Grand Slam singles final encounter during that time was 4 between Serena and Maria Sharapova).
  • In general, they have been the most popular players on tour since they debuted (in the sense that they are the biggest draws in the sport both on TV and at tournaments, and they make the most money in endorsements).
  • And a big reason they have made such an impact is that they have outlasted all of their rivals, both playing 23+ years on tour, with Venus playing the most Grand Slam singles events in tennis history with 85.
If their singles accomplishments weren't enough, the Williams sisters have also been the best doubles team of the century.
  • Together, they have won 14 Grand Slam doubles titles. The next most won by a team in that same time frame was 8 by Virginia Ruano Pascual and Paola Suárez.
  • They have also won 3 Olympic gold medals together in women's doubles (in 2000, 2008, and 2012).
This is why Tennis magazine ranked the Williams sisters as the top two women's tennis players from this century in 2018 (Serena at No. 1, Venus at No. 8, and Henin was next at No. 9). You are welcome to disagree, but I think it's pretty clear just from the sources that they have been the most dominant women's tennis players since they began their careers. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The doubles means nothing in regards to the Clijsters rivalry. Zip. I can't believe you even brought it up. There is a big difference in top two from a magazine and domination for 19+ years. Huge. There is no question that Serena has had periods of dominance, but that is not the statement you want to include. And the statement by Tignor does not support your inclusion either since he is talking about African-American tennis players as a whole starting with Venus and Serena. Their longevity is simply amazing... that puts them in the same type of category as a Jimmy Connors... certainly nothing to sneeze at. I have always marveled at it. But Venus and Serena are two completely different players at two completely different levels. To lump them together and say they have dominated this entire century is like saying Serena and you have dominated this century in singles. Your totals together are the highest so it must be so. It's not fair to the other players like Henin who is much more accomplished then Venus this century. All I'm saying is turn down the rhetoric and keep it reasonable. Leave the wide domination statements to players like Lenglen and Wills. Perhaps more like "Serena Williams was the foremost tennis player in the world during Clijsters time on the WTA tour, and Serena's sister Venus was a five times major champion during that same period." Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me like you don't like this statement because you think it implies that Venus separated herself from Henin, or that Venus is on par with Serena. That's not what the statement means, nor is it what the sources mean when they call the Williams sisters dominant.
The situation is similar to the Big Four in men's tennis. Saying the Big Four have dominated men's tennis for nearly two decades doesn't imply that Andy Murray is at the same level as Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic. Nor does it imply that Murray has separated himself from all of the other players who aren't members of the Big Four. It simply implies that the media decided to group Murray with those other three players, and part of the reason the media established that group is because that group has dominated tennis for a really long time. The statement in question just implies that the media established the same type of group with the Williams sisters for the same types of reasons, i.e. that the Williams sisters' combined achievements have been dominant.
It isn't arbitrary to group the Williams sisters together. We have an article on the Big Four. We have an article on the Williams sisters. We don't have an article on Serena and me. The media determined that, not us. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't think that domination statement should be there at all. I don't think it's accurate or encyclopedic. You want something there and we have a disagreement. There must be room for some compromise and it's why I have tried different wording. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to leave your factual ranking by tennis.com but then I would have had to add another factual ranking by TBS in their ranking of both Henin and Davenport ahead of Venus. Venus didn't even make their list. I could have added many others but I don't think that's the place for water cooler rankings of Venus and Serena on Clijsters article. Perhaps if you put in just Serena Williams as a rival and left out Venus. Or perhaps make them separate entries? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not continuing to revert, I keep trying to add things to make it truthful. I still think it best to leave out water cooler fluff, but if if one side is going to be added then the obverse should be there also. Your call on that, I can add more and more if you like but I still think it best if all the rhetoric is removed and we simply state that the Williams sisters "collectively" were two of the top players during Clijsters time on court. We can make two entries if you'd like to enhance Serena's court prowess. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you don't want to discuss a proper compromise here, that we could both agree on, before re-adding lopsided balance. I can leave what you write verbatim but I will be countering it with opposite views to keep balance. I think the article is worse for it and that we should keep all the Williams-Henin-Sharapova tail-puffing to their own articles and not enter them in a Clijsters article. Especially when you link both Williams sisters records as a total of dominance... most readers won't know the split totals of those two players and may think Venus was greater than she was or Serena is worse than she was. Serena and Venus should be split as rivals. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can leave what you write verbatim but I will be countering it with opposite views to keep balance.

Is that a threat? Sounds like WP:HOUNDING to me. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you put pov statements in the article without balance, I will make sure it is balanced for our readers. I would rather all the statements be removed, but it needs to be balanced. Take that as you will. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another oddity. Under rivalries, Henin gets a heading... they played 25 times so that seems fair enough. The Williams sisters get a heading. Clijsters only played Serena 9x and Venus she played 13x. Not very many times for a rivalry but ok. Then we have Lindsay Davenport and Amélie Mauresmo under "other rivals." Davenport she played 17x and Mauresmo she played 15x. They should be listed each with full headings since we have Serena Williams and Venus Williams with less matches. Kind of a strange rivalry section to say the least. I brought Davenport up to speed on her dominance too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has passed the Featured Article review process. All of the content is considered to be the WP:CONSENSUS version, reviewed by many editors who all have extensive experience writing featured content. You can't just change the structure of the article without first starting a discussion and establishing a new consensus among editors. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If something is "Wrong", you bet I can change it. The reviewers didn't look for that type of error. The top of the talk page even tells us "Kim Clijsters is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." I have explained why it is wrong. And BR is a viable source since it's restructuring in 2010. The best source... no. I have have tried to get you to work out a compromise before we enter corrected data but you seem to be fighting this type of solution. Why? I can call in some third party dispute where they are likely to remove everything (since they won't be tennis editors) but I thought we could work out what is best for our readers. If you say you won't budge then it will be our best option. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can re-write the whole section and make if five separate players in order of matches played, but not until we get some things agreed upon. I have added a pov template to the section. I think the section is the only thing out of pov whack in the article. Hopefully we will get some input to help us out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to say Venus was the second-best player of Clijsters's era, we could call her "one of the best players of her era and commonly ranked ahead of Clijsters". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does how Venus is described have to do with breaking up the rest of the rivalry section? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that is constructive. I have no issue with that wording of Venus at all. She was one of the best of her era and she is usually ranked above Clijsters. We are good with that issue. It's the combining of hers and Serena's stats that sounds weird and elevates Venus. And things like 19 years of domination are problematic. Why is it that the players Clijsters has played the most are lumped into "others" and why the unusual combining of Serena and Venus as her rivals? Just because they are sisters they can't have separate rival headings? Otherwise you could have Henin alone as her greatest rival and Serena and Venus stuffed in below the "others." Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click) and Sportsfan77777: It's been three 3+ months since this discussion. Has this been resolved to an acceptable outcome yet so that the maintenance tag can be removed? Or is more negotiation required? —howcheng {chat} 18:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put in what I think is a less controversial version. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article size[edit]

Just tripped over this at Wikipedia:Featured_articles/By_length at #94; we should probably think about splitting out her career? Mjquinn_id (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That list is by bytes, not readable prose size (see WP:LENGTH). The number of bytes the references take up (~120kb, 67% of the count in that list) doesn't matter. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Clijsters&oldid=1193067453"