Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of French Open Men's Singles champions/archive1

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 16:29, 23 November 2009 [1].

List of French Open Men's Singles champions[edit]

Nominator(s): BLUEDOGTN 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because it is similar to the List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions and List of US Open Men's Singles champions, and I feel it is worthy of this honor and distinction. BLUEDOGTN 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over everything in the toolbox and all looks okay right now, which I fixed the intro to match the other two with the exception of describing this slam in its unique ways.BLUEDOGTN 02:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took and corrected some stuff in the introduction which makes the intro superb. Please, come in and give your opinion editors!BLUEDOGTN 03:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "before competition was moved to the newly-built Stade Roland Garros." Add "the" before "competition" and remove the hyphen later in the sentence.
Fixed
  • "Until 1924, the tournament was reserved to French tennis clubs members". Replace "to" with "for" and put an apostrophe at the end of "clubs".
Fixed
  • "Those editions are counted out of the tournament's history." "Counted out" reminds me of boxing, and it's not something I've seen used in this context before. How about a simple "Those editions are not counted in the tournament's history."?
Fixed
  • "is held by Paul Ayme (winner, 1897–1900) all titles within the clubs members only format." Is there punctuation missing by the parentheses, or was the part at the end meant to be part of them? It reads oddly as is.
Fixed
"which all titles came within the club members only format" is odd following Ayme's name. Perhaps "whose titles all came within the club members only format" would be better? Giants2008 (17–14) 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Again
  • No need for multiple Henri Cochet links in the lead.
Fixed
  • "and is co-held by four tennis players". Colon after this to set up the four players. While I'm on this sentence, I think you can drop "tennis" from the sentence since it's clear what sport the players competed in.
Fixed
  • "In the French Open, most wins is held by...". Add "the" after the comma.
Fixed
  • De-capitalize Addition in the next sentence.
Fixed
  • In my numerous almanacs, the pre-1925 champions are never given. They obviously should be here since you found a source for them, but I'm curious as to whether they are considered Grand Slam winners.

Still want to check the images, but I'll have to do that another time. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree!BLUEDOGTN 01:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One note before I continue on to the image review: it's generally considered bad form to cap a reviewer's comments at FLC since they should check to see if the comments have been acted upon. Occasionally there are situations where modifications need further work, and capping makes it harder to note these, as I did above in one case.
Thanks for reminding meBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's odd that the Rod Laver photo appears besides both tables. I don't recall seeing an article with multiple uses of a single picture before.
Fixed by the Rambling ManBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mats Wilander photo doesn't have strong evidence that it was published at least 20 years ago (as the license requires). I would suggest removing it. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FixedBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I've removed the first Laver image, it was unnecessary to repeat it and it was also causing alignment issues for me.
OkayBLUEDOGTN
  • Why "Other tournament" with a caveat? Would be simpler, cleaner and less controversial to just make this a traditional "See also" section, wouldn't it?
Okay FixedBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • French Championships template seems to be missing several early year events. Is there a reason for this?
Yes, it is just unavailable, which I checked on it in my research.BLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "French club members only event" shouldn't there be a hyphen between members and only?
Yes, I don't see it, so will you correct itBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put a comma before ref [2].
Fixed
  • "and thrice by" why not just "three times"?
Fixed bothBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cochet's caption says he's a musketeer. He wasn't was he? He was a tennis player. If this was a nickname, you should clarify it.
Took awayBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you note anywhere that an en-dash in the score means that the score is unknown?
Semi-Fixed Go look and make it linkBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the way.BLUEDOGTN 04:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-tennis experts may not understand the tie-breaker notation (e.g. 7–6(7–3) ) - this is worth explanation.
Semi-Fixed Go look and make it linkBLUEDOGTN 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all the way.BLUEDOGTN 04:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Images: Licensing seems fine and alt text is present. Goodraise 14:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: No concerns about the sources used. Goodraise 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
If you would like to see the conversions Goodraise, you can by all means do them, but it meets the country specific criteria since France uses the Euro now instead of the Franc. I don't see the use, I might add.BLUEDOGTN 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Generally, use the full name of a currency on its first appearance" is what I would like to see. Goodraise 03:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it with the Euro and the symbol before the amount like money is suppose to be written in.BLUEDOGTN 04:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style demands otherwise, that's what matters to me. Goodraise 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 8 does not seem to support the statement preceding it.
Yes it does, if you click on the more information link.BLUEDOGTN 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing that out in the reference text would be beneficial. Goodraise 03:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did.BLUEDOGTN 04:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to weakly oppose this nomination, mainly because I see room for improvement in the prose. Goodraise 18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is it the other two Wimbledon and US which are feature only list the currency of origin and the prose is done fine, I might add.BLUEDOGTN 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now do you still oppose?BLUEDOGTN 04:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no significant improvements to the prose since my last comments, so yes, I still oppose. Goodraise 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving this nomination my weak support on the condition that WFCforLife's concern about the scores is addressed. Goodraise 02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Feel free to answer after each bullet point or at the end, whichever you find easier.[reply]

  • Notes should appear in alphanumeric order. For example (and this is not an exhaustive list), the first [h] should not appear earlier in the list than the first [c].
FixedBLUEDOGTN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two two-line paragraphs, at least one of which could easily be merged into a larger paragraph.
Fixed BothBLUEDOGTN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably I've missed this, but what is sourcing the scorelines?
Got them Sourced!BLUEDOGTN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a source which indicates that records of the missing scorelines do not exist? It seems somewhat strange that records exist for as early as 1891, yet were not kept for as late as 1913. If the records were destroyed, I would assume that there is a source for this.
YesBLUEDOGTN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that much about tennis, but consider changing "active player" to something which cannot possibly become outdated, such as "competed in the 2009 season" (which could obviously be updated to "...2010 season" in future). Seems picky, but I've seen at least three recent sports FLCs where this has come up.
I like and changed it to "Competed in 2009"BLUEDOGTN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance I have some grammatical concerns, but some of these are being covered by other reviewers so I'll concentrate on these areas for the time being. WFCforLife (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Go and Fix it because I cannot spot them!BLUEDOGTN 10:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "The men's singles was the first event contested in 1891." Not sure what this means. Was the event the first to be played in that year, or was it the first overall event to be contested, and this occured in 1891?
FixedBLUEDOGTN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The event was not held from 1915 to 1919 because of World War I, and officially from 1940 to 1945 because of World War II." So the WWI break was unofficial?
Chaged to "not officially held" FixedBLUEDOGTN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clubs members only event" Not sure what this means in the key? Can you explain here, so I can maybe clarify it in the article? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Members of French Tennis clubs only throughout the country of France!BLUEDOGTN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The grammar seems to have been dealt with by Dabomb and Bluedog, but I'm afraid I can't support yet.

Then, fix it if it is not up to your standard or put your misgivings here, and I will address them! I dislike when people say grammar grammar and grammar for their oppose if they do not fix it or point out the exact things they disagree with.BLUEDOGTN 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I originally raised the point that it seems unusual that earlier scores were there while later ones weren't. The response was to remove the earlier scores, which was the worst possible change, and should be reversed. I was simply querying why this was the case. If the other scores don't exist, they don't exist. I simply want a satisfactory explanation, and if possible a source which seems to support this. The fact that they're not listed is an indication, but I've seen nothing which suggests that they cannot be found.
They cannont be found because the scores on the sources just have 1925 onward. I got two sources to prove that fact.BLUEDOGTN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5 does not source the scorelines, it sources the winners.
I put 10 and 11 their, too! This will let it be sourced.BLUEDOGTN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My browser security does not allow me to view source 10. Could another reviewer confirm what is in this source, (crucially, does it make any suggestion that the other scores have been lost?) and could Bluedog explain why it is a reliable source?
The grandslamhistory one is a reliable one and the Hick of sports is their to back it up!BLUEDOGTN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for dragging this on, but if this results in more scores being obtained, and/or a source explaning the gaps being uncovered, then it will have been worth the effort. WFCforLife (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They cannot be obtained!BLUEDOGTN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then why were they there before? Surely they weren't just made up. I do accept that some scores may be missing, and that this can be a featured list without them. However, nothing has been done to convince me that the list is as complete as possible, and if anything I'm less certain now than I was when I did my initial review. I therefore have no choice but to oppose. WFCforLife (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't have the score is not reason this cannot be featured, which is because it was not recorded, which is because pre-1925 it was not considered a slam. Go look at the men's grand slam page.BLUEDOGTN 21:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, note C needs rewording, as we do have some results from the pre-slam era. The point that I am now making for a third time is that nothing reliable has suggested that the other results don't exist or have been destroyed. I'm not willing to deactivate my internet security to access ref 10, but unless it specifically addresses this point then I have to remain opposed, (and even if it does, I would suggest replacing a source which is blocked by one of the biggest internet security providers). I would be very happy to support if this were addressed, but I feel this important enough to oppose.
If you feel my judgement is wrong, perhaps we could draw attention to this discussion on the FLC talk page? It might help. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a follower of tennis majors for the last 10 years, including building my own database of tennis results. To comment on this, indeed, for the pre-slam era, we do have the list of winners but the scores could not be obtained. That is, I'm referring to the official website. In as much as the Wikipedia policy is to not use a primary source as a citation, I don't think this will really matter for such facts as the who's and the what's (or concrete facts) of the subject. So if the official website can't really divulge these info on scoring, then likely no other websites could, since it is the father of all French Open results website. That is unless one probably undertakes personal research to search for facts in newspaper clippings or something. But wikipedia doesn't allow original research (is this applicable here?). In retrospect, I also had a hard time trying to find the scores of tie breaks (lingering death system) up to the mid-1980s in the majors and year-end championships. If the scores for these "recent" matches could not be found, what more for those that took place in the 1920s? Joey80 (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The missing scores aren't a big deal per se. It just strikes me as very surprising that we have some scores from that era yet not others. Is there really no story behind the missing scores whatsoever? If there isn't there isn't, (and if there isn't we shouldn't fail this FLC as a result), but I find it difficult to believe that it's never been talked about. WFCforLife (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot do any better on this article than has been done on this list, so if you find grammar problems it is not my problem rather yours since you've got the problem with it. So, I would advise you WFCforLife and Goodraise to fix them, which I will have no problem with that at all, and if you need my help I am here to help on matters of technical questions. By the way, the scores cannot and could not be obtained for some years because it was the French National reserved for French Club Amateur Tennis players only, which means some records did not get recorded for historical fact. Most places online only have post-1925 brackets and scoring, which this is the case here as well. Have a nice day...BLUEDOGTN 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for goodraise, but I have already expressed that I'm happy with the work yourself and DaBomb have done on the grammar. I remain opposed for reasons I have now expressed three times. It'd be worth seeing if goodraise is willing to support, but as far as I'm concerned I'm finished here unless something substantial is provided (and if it is you'll need to notify me as I'm no longer watching this page). I wish you the very best of luck, and I appreciate Joey's input, but nothing has been provided which changes my oppose. It's up to the directors to interpret this discussion, and I respect whatever decision is made.
Regardless, I strongly urge the removal of the Hick of Sports reference. Firstly a reliable source doesn't need "backing up", and secondly a site which makes "unauthorised changes to a user's computer" should not be linked to from an example of wikipedia's best work. WFCforLife (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took out Hick of Sports Ref per your suggestion!BLUEDOGTN 23:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked The Rambling Man to close this, and per his decision it will be promoted or declined. Thanks for commenting on this right now! I have done this the best I could have right now with the information on the scores and the grammer is the best that I can do this for the English language. I will be moving onto the Australian Open one to get it up to par. Thanks...BLUEDOGTN 04:10, 19 November 2009 (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_list_candidates/List_of_French_Open_Men%27s_Singles_champions/archive1&oldid=1143868338"