Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suzanne Lenglen/archive2

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 January 2021 [1].

---

Suzanne Lenglen

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, one of the first global superstars of tennis. Lenglen was virtually unbeatable, winning 287 out of the final 288 matches of her career. She gained immense popularity through her balletic playing style and vibrant personality, and first drew attention to herself by winning a World Championship tournament a few weeks after turning 15 years old. Her popularity forced Wimbledon to move to a new venue more than twice the size of the previous one to accommodate all of the fans who wanted to see her play. While still in her prime, Lenglen spurned amateur tennis to turn professional. She was the first top amateur player to turn professional, kickstarting the professional era. In one year of professional tours, Lenglen made more money than Babe Ruth in the year Ruth hit a record-setting 60 home runs.

A former featured article from the Stone Age of FAC reviews, this is your chance to get a former FA back to featured status and to review one of the most vital articles in tennis history. If passed, this would be my third FA; here are the first two: Kim Clijsters (also tennis) and Erin Phillips (Australian football). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review

I think resolved, but not confirmed yet. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1922_(instant)_(cropped).jpg: when/where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death?
  • The publication date on BnF/Gallica is listed as 1922, and the author is an agency (Agence Rol), not a person. I think the Template:PD-old tag may not be the correct one. (The rights on Gallica are listed as "public domain".) Does Gallica have its own public domain tag (such as Template:PD-GallicaScan?), or is there a broader one related to the EU or France (such as Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure)? A bunch of the other images below have the same issue. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Or is it even simpler than that and do the Gallica images listed as "public domain" (with the author as Agence Rol) just count as Template:PD-author? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Only if Gallica is the copyright holder - are they? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I believe BnF/Gallica owns the image itself. (They own all of Agence Rol's collections, and Agence Rol merged with other agencies in 1937.) Does that mean BnF/Gallica also owns the copyright? (or alternatively, does no one own the copyright because Agence Rol is gone?) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Separately, I found Template:PD-BNF as a tag option. Would that alone suffice, or does it also need a US tag? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • That tag would suffice for French status, but it would need a separate tag for US. Owning the images does not automatically mean one owns the copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Okay, then would the PD-BNF plus the generic PD-US work for all of the Agence Rol Gallica images from before 1925 (all but one)? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
            • Assuming they were all published, not simply created, before then. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
              • Gallica says they were published before then. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen,_Elizabeth_Ryan,_1914_(light).jpg
• Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen_playing_baseline_1914_(cropped)_3.jpg
• Ditto File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1920_Cannes_(cropped).jpg
• File:1919_wimbledon_final_(instant)_(cropped).jpg: as per the UK tag, image description should specify research to verify anonymity
  • If the image was published in a newspaper and the author wasn't specified in the newspaper, does that suffice? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Was it credited in any other source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
      • The National Portrait Gallery has a restored version of the same image, and they state the photographer is unknown. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I would suggest adding this information to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Added! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• File:Mlle_Lenglen_et_Brugnon_(cropped)_2.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • France 1921. (I'll switch the tags to PD-BNF + PD-US, and clarify the publication info.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Ditto File:Mallory_and_Lenglen_1921_St_Cloud_(cropped)_2.jpg
  • France 1921. (I'll switch the tags to PD-BNF + PD-US, and clarify the publication info) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Not resolved yet. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• File:Mary_Browne_%26_Lenglen_(Tennis)_LCCN2014710151_(cropped).jpg when/where was this first published?
  • US 1926. (I think the two for this one should suffice, and clarify the publication info) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• File:Suzanne_lenglen_1920.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • As the image was published in Lenglen's book (that she wrote), would it be correct to say that Lenglen is the author? (If yes, she died in 1938.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Is there any attribution in the book? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, I just noticed! It was by the Maull and Fox company (which was taken over in 1928), but not Maull or Fox themselves because they were already dead. Would Template:PD-UK-unknown make sense here with no individual author identified? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, but as above you'd need to include evidence of research into anonymity. Was the author identified in any other source? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Okay, I found that the firm was continued by Fox's son Herbert Fox (1870–unknown) and Frederic Glover (who joined in 1890). Does it suffice to assume that neither lived past 80 years old (to use the Template:PD-old-70 tag)? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
            • Commons uses commons:Template:PD-old-assumed for cases where the author's date of death is unknown but reasonably assumed to be over 70 years ago, but only for works published over 120 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
              • I just realized the book was published in the US (and I can't find the photo published anywhere else). In that case, would just a regular PD-US tag suffice (since it was published in 1920).
                • Was the book only published in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
                  • The publisher was based in the US. I imagine the book was circulated elsewhere, does that affect anything? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
                    • If it were simultaneously published elsewhere that might affect things as far as Commons goes, but if it was published US and only circulated elsewhere - and assuming you're corrected that the photo was not published elsewhere - that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• File:Lenglen_Wills_Match_of_the_Century_1926_2_(instant)_(cropped).jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Silly question, but is the PD-US tag for images published before 1925 or for images published at least 95 years ago? (because the 95th anniversary of this photo is less than two months away) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    • At the moment it's 1925, in a couple of days it'll be 1926 - the turnover is start of year, not the exact anniversary of publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Okay. As an alternative, would Template:PD-1996 apply to this image? (I see it was used for Maurice Ravel, which has a similar state in that it is also listed as public domain on Gallica, and has no identified individual author.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
        • 1926 +70 would put this after the URAA date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Okay, I replaced this image with a non-free one that I believe to be fair use. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
            • The "unique historic images" tag is intended for cases where the image itself is the subject of commentary, not just what is depicted - eg. Tank Man. It's not clear to me that that is the case here. Suggest replacing that tag and expanding the fair-use rationale, particularly as regards purpose of use - what do readers gain from seeing this image over and above just being told that they thought the match was over when it wasn't? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
              • Hmm, I picked that image in particular because I thought it was a unique historic image where the image itself is what's important and the subject of commentary. Is it within reason that a sports photograph could be a unique historic image? Or is the issue that I didn't discuss the image in the prose? If the latter is the case, I reworded the section to mention the image. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
                • It is conceivable that a sports photograph could be a unique historic image; I'm just not convinced yet that this one is. The text notes that photographers captured this moment, but I'm not seeing commentary rising to the level of "transformative" as per the tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
                  • The Engelmann book states, "The most famous photograph of that instant shows the two women meeting at the net and a hand extended toward the photographer from the corner of the picture. Someone seemed to be signaling to the photographer to stop taking pictures. But why? Something was not right... One writer compared the false "out" call to the false armistice announcement on November 7, 1918 when millions of Americans reacted hysterically to a report that World War I had ended." Does that suffice to justify fair use? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
                    • Okay. Suggest elaborating on the fair-use rationale to include some of this detail. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
                      • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
                        • Is this good enough, Nikkimaria? I wanted to give you a chance to reply before the bot archives the nomination. (No real rush, though, haha. I'll end up re-nominating.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Amakuru

• Early life and background:
  • "Several years after Suzanne was born, her father sold the omnibus business and relocated the family to Marest-sur-Matz near Compiègne in northern France in 1904" - were the selling of the business and the relocation separate events? If so, it would be worth separating them out so it's clear. And if they're actually part of the same event, then we should chop either "Several years after..." or "in 1904", since both indicate a point in time.
    • I don't know exactly when the selling of the business happened. Changed it to "her father sold the omnibus business, after which he relocated the family". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Nice Lawn Tennis Club" - we have an article for this, so link to it
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "loved to play diabolo" - it may be just me, but "loved to" doesn't quite sound like formal encyclopedic language. Is that what the sources says? Could consider "enjoyed" instead.
    • Changed to "In particular, she enjoyed to play diabolo". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "through attending tournaments on the Riviera where the world's best players" - a comma after Riviera might help the flow a bit here.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the world's best players would compete" - just "the world's best players competed" would be preferable.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Having played the sport recreationally in the past, he bought Lenglen a racket from a toy store" - are his playing in the past and the fact that he bought her the racket specifically linked? If not, could either split it up, or rephrase to something like "He had played the sport recreationally in the past, and he bought..." or similar.
    • Yes, I would say they are linked. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "to practice with friends" - since the article is tagged as British English, this should be "to practise", I believe.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "She quickly showed enough skill for tennis to convince her father to get her a proper racket within a month" - was the previous racket not a proper one then? Toy stores might also sell such things, so if the previous one was actually a toy then maybe say so. Also, should be "skill at tennis"?
    • Clarified the second one was from a tennis manufacturer. "skill at tennis" Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Three months later in September, Lenglen" - a comma after "later" I think, as "in September" is an appositive phrase.
    • Done, good catch! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "a proper tennis court" - second use of "proper" this paragraph... not totally convinced it's an encyclopedic word, and could change at least one of them to something else.
    • I feel like alternatives (e.g. real, actual) would be less encyclopedic. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

      Well, yes. Real and actual don't improve things much. But all these words seem quite vague to me. I might say to my kids "this is a proper tennis court", but I wouldn't expect to say it in a formal letter. What was the real difference between the "improper" rackets and courts and the "proper" ones that she moved on to? Maybe defined in terms of their being to official standards or something. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

      For the racket, the first one was from a toy store (and not intended for serious use) and the second one was from a tennis manufacturer. For the court, one of the differences is that the first one was grass and the second one was clay, which was ubiquitous in France for tennis courts at the time (and still is, I think). But the real big difference was that for the first one, I think her father just drew the lines himself. The grass was also just the grass in their backyard; it wasn't designed to be used as a tennis court (maybe it wasn't even flat, for instance). (Like... you can kick a football in your backyard with the garage marked as a net, but that doesn't mean your backyard counts as a football pitch.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "the singles handicap event" - a link might be useful, to aid readers in understanding what this is
    • I added a section to the tennis scoring system article and linked that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "towards the end of the fall" - "autumn" in British English
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "They only showed restraint in their criticisms when she was sick, leading to Lenglen becoming comfortable with being ill" - I'm not quite sure what this means. Did she fake illness in order to avoid their criticism?
    • Sort of, but more like "it was not clear whether she was actually sick". I added "That trait made it difficult for others to ascertain whether Lenglen was sick when she was showing symptoms." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1912-13: Maiden titles:
  • "Lenglen entered her first open singles event" - does "open" mean non-handicap? A link or clarification might help
    • Changed to "standard", and clarified "standard non-handicap" at the beginning of this section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "After her opponent defaulted" - a link of some sort would be useful, so unfamiliar readers can know what this means
    • Added link to walkover. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "not won a title" - "failed to win a title"?
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "a tie" - link to what this means?
    • I actually don't think we have an article on this. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Nonetheless, when Lenglen returned" - why is this "nonetheless"? I'm guessing maybe you mean that "winning one match" in the prior event was a bad thing, in which case probably add in "only one match" or similar.
    • Added "only" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "She won her next event in Lille as well. Both titles came within a few weeks of her 14th birthday" - might work better as a single sentence with a comma rather than two short sentences.
    • Merged the two title sentences. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the latter of which by default" - any reason why?
    • No, it was more common to default at that time for reasons that would be considered "non-serious" by today's standards. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• More to follow! I'm impressed with the article so far anyway, so I'm likely to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "South of France Championships" - link
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1914: World Hard Court champion:
  • "Cannes" - link, as it's the first mention
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "was regarded as a huge surprise" - should probably say by whom
    • Added "by the tennis community". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Wimbledon" - link
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Racing Club de France" - link
    • I think the article is more for the club rather than the actual facility. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "where she only lost three games" - "in which she lost only three games" sounds better
    • Split in two: "Nonetheless, she won three matches to make the final against Germaine Golding. She defeated Golding for her first major title, losing only three games." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "when she had already lost" - maybe "given that she had only lost"?
    • Done (assuming you didn't mean to change "already"). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• World War I hiatus:
  • Can't see any issues here.
• 1919: Classic Wimbledon final:
  • "in the challenge round" - although we've already introduced the "challenge round" concept, we're generally calling the event "the final" in this section, so would make sense to clarify
    • I think the statement from the 1914 section establishes that the challenge round is the final: "The format gave the defending champion a bye until the final match, known as the challenge round." Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1920: Olympic champion:
  • "Ryan was able to defeat Lenglen in mixed doubles at Cannes in windy conditions" - should probably say who the partners were
    • It wasn't anyone significant. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "was also a rematch of the previous year's final" - should probably drop the "also", as it's a bit repetitive
    • It refers to the fact that both the singles and doubles finals were rematches. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "only losing three games" - not sure why, but I feel like "losing only" is more formal than "only losing". There are quite a few examples of this, so maybe go through and change them all.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "after their opponents withdrew prior to the match" - I assume "the match" means a bronze-medal playoff, but probably worth clarifying
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• More to follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Only singles defeat post-World War I:
  • No issues with this section at all, looks great.
• Start of 179-match win streak:
  • "and only lost twelve points" - change to "and lost only twelve points"? Not sure why, but as above this rings better.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "who had defaulted against her in the United States" - wondering if this is really necessary here... we know that she defaulted from above, and it's not directly relevant to Lenglen's easy win the following year. Up to you though.
    • Removed, that's fair. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "to end Lenglen's amateur career" - this sounds slightly odd, as if it was the streak which ended her career. Could maybe consider "which lasted for the remainder of he amateur career" or similar.
    • Changed to "This tournament began a 179-match win streak that Lenglen continued through the end of her amateur career". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1923: Career-best 45 titles:
  • "with a mixed doubles loss to Ryan and Lycett" - I don't think we know who her partner was in this event?
    • It wasn't anyone significant. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "She faced the most adversity in the final" - in which event? Presumably the singles, but should say so.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "However, while partnering with Jean Washer, she was defeated ..." - again, clarify the event. Guessing mixed doubles.
    • It's clear from them facing Ryan and Lycett. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1924: No major titles:
  • "she also did not win a major tournament in a year where majors were held for the first time since 1913" - the wording here is quite confusing. Initially I thought this was saying that there had been no major tournaments played since 1913, and it was only when I noticed that this did not tally with the mention of Wimbledon in previous paragraphs that I figured out the real meaning!
    • Changed to "she also did not win a major tournament for the first time since 1913 aside from her hiatus due to World War I" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1925: Open French champion
  • The lead uses the terminology "Open French champion", but the body does not use this exact term. Presumably "open" means open to international players in this context (in contrast to the now-replaced usage of open to mean a non-handicap event earlier in the article). Maybe match up the title and the wording in the body somehow?
    • I changed the "non-handicap" from "open" to "standard" above because I don't think "open" is actually used that way. "open" is commonly used to indicate "open to internationals". I was hoping that was clear from "the inaugural edition open to international players". The title is really "open French champion", but the "open" is capitalized because it's the first word. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1926: Match of the Century
  • "retiring" - is this the correct terminology? Moving from amateur to prefessional wouldn't seem like a retirement to me, but I guess if that's what everyone says...
    • I think it's fair to say "retiring from amateur tennis to professional", just as one might "retire from professional tennis to become a coach" today. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "After the linesman clarified the shot was good and a delay of at least several minutes to clear the court" - the two parts of this conjunction seem to be a verb and a noun respectively, which doesn't sound correct. Probably best to change to "After the linesman's clarification that the shot was good and a delay..."
    • Done, good catch! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Wills's season was cut short when she needed to have her appendix removed following her second round victory at the French Championships"
• More to follow.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• United States tour (1926-27):
  • "an offer of 200,000 francs to turn professional in America" - (1) this should probably be either "the US" or "the United States"; (2) is there a reason why she was offered a francs contract the previous time, but a $ contract this time?
    • First part done. Second part: it was a different person making the offer. / I am following the book. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The singles matches were almost best-of-three sets" - should this be "almost all"?
    • Yes, good catch! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "after Lenglen became ill and had decided to play" - mixture of tenses here... should be either "after Lenglen had become ill and decided to play..." or "after Lenglan became ill and decided to play..."
    • Changed to "where Lenglen had decided to play just a one set match in spite of being ill to avoid disappointing the fans" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "an attendance of 13000" - should have a comma in the number as it's five digits per MOS:DIGITS. Ditto "10000".
    • Done.
  • "from ticket sales between $1.50 and $5.50" - doesn't seem to quite scan. Maybe change to "sales of tickets priced at" or similar.
    • Done.
• British tour (1927):
  • Koring - should be Köring
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "1912 Olympic silver medalist" - Link to Tennis at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Women's outdoor singles
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "15000" - as above.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Aftermath:
  • "Lenglen was widely criticized for her decision to turn professional" - this seems to be a case of WP:WEASEL, as this wide criticism is not attributed to anyone. Can we give some examples of who criticised her?
    • The next sentence is meant to be the two main examples. Do you think that is clear? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

      Yeah, that's OK then.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "criticized" - British English does actually optionally allow for "-ize" endings, but it should be consistent. Further down the article I see "organised" and "organising", so make it consistent one way or the other.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Paul Féret was reinstated"- just Féret will do, as we already introduced him further up and referred to him as Féret already as well.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Lenglen vs. Mallory:
  • "The strengths of her game were..." - whom does this refer to, Lenglen or Mallory?
    • Clarified. (Mallory) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "When they first faced each other in the final of the 1921 World Hard Court Championships" - think there should be a comma after "other", as I think they only met in the 1921 final once 😊
    • Done, good catch! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Unlike in their previous match" - previous sentenced started "Like..." which makes this sound slightly repetitive.
    • I did that deliberately to highlight the contrast. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

      Ah, I see now. It didn't quite read that way when I saw it at first... Could we do "But unlike..." in the second part?  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

      Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Her health prevented them from playing doubles together at the tournament" - again, is this Mallory or Lenglen, and was there a real prospect of their playing together? The last sentence of the previous paragraph talks of them playing against each other at doubles.
    • Yes, they had entered the doubles together. Clarified. (I originally had it in the 1921 section also, but removed it.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Lenglen and Ryan:
  • Is there a reason this sub-section uses "and", whereas the previous one uses "vs."?
    • Yes, it also talks about what they accomplished together as doubles partners. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "at a handicap event at Monte Carlo" - "in Monte Carlo" might work better to avoid repetition of "at"
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "twentieth such title" - since we say "19" in digits in the prior sentence, might be better to say "20th" here.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "third greatest female player" - probably insert a hyphen in "third-greatest"
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• OK, will pause again there. This is a long article to get through! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Footnotes:
  • (d) - we've said "U.S." elsewhere rather than "US" so make it consistent.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
• Playing style:
  • "Elizabeth Ryan described her style of play as, "[Lenglen] owned every kind of shot..." - this doesn't seem to quite scan "Lenglen owned every kind of shot" isn't really a style of play. You'd expect an adjective to appear after "as". Maybe rephrase slightly so that the quote stands by itself.
    • Changed to "Elizabeth Ryan described the skill in her style of play, saying," Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "topspin" - is there a link available?
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "backhand" - ditto
    • Done, and forehand too. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Achievements:
  • "highlighted by a" - maybe just "with a"... not sure if the singles record "highlights" the overall record, particularly as they're both in the high 90s
    • Changed to "She compiled a win percentage of 97.9% win percentage in singles and had a win percentage of 96.9% across all disciplines. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "287 of 288 matches" - I think this is singles only, right? Maybe clarify
    • Yes, done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Maureen Connolly" - already linked her above. Margaret Court too.
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Mythical persona:
  • "10000" - comma as it's a five-figure number
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "She was known for a story ... It was said that ..." - these things should probably be attributed.
    • It's meant to be part of the story. (It's unclear how much of it is real.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Fashion:

• • "that other players had been preferred before her time" - doesn't scan, needs a grammar tweak I think
    • Removed "been", which was a typo. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Honours:
  • "Cross of the Legion of Honour" - is there a link for this?
    • Yes, added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• Personal life:
  • "advice on tactics for beginning tennis players" - maybe "beginner"?
    • Sure. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "on what was need" - should be "needed"
    • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think that's about it! Good read all round, and very informative, thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for getting through all of it!! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Not a problem, I actually didn't know that much about Lenglen so it's been fun reading about her. Thanks for all the fixes above! I'm still not mad keen on the use of "proper" here but that's just me I guess, and not enough to derail an otherwise excellent nom. Happy to support. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder for TRM

Nice work, I'll add some comments in due course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man It looks like you maybe forgot about this? If you don't intend to review it, it should probably be put on the urgents list for additional reviews. (t · c) buidhe 00:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, I didn't forget about it, cheers. While others are making substantial comments, there's no point in reviewing as there may well be duplication of effort. Chill and I'll get to it when I'm ready. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  Apologies Sportsfan77777, I won't be contributing here, it's clear my review style is unwelcome by some. I'll try to help other ways. Sorry to let you down. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than four weeks and has only one support. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it picks up more interest over the next two or three days it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Would the support(s) and review(s) carry over if they were completed and I need to renominate? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Although my experience is that reviewers are happy to re-review - they don't like to see their initial review "wasted". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I am regretfully archiving this. After nearly five weeks it has attracted little interest. The two weeks wait before renomination will not apply. However, Sportsfan77777 can I suggest having some willing, and preferably experienced, reviewers lined up when it next appears here. Call in some favours, or perhaps do a few more FAC reviews to accumulate some favours.

Okay, thanks for waving the two-week requirement! I'll try to find reviewers. I've done that before (and it's worked), but I didn't do it this time because I'm not really in any rush. (I don't have anything else to nominate.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.