Wikipedia:Peer review/1970 Houston Women's Invitation/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it has potential to be a FA. I've sent this for a copy edit so I don't really want comments on phrasing spelling grammer. But anything else which sees the standard of the article improve would be great, e.g. order/placement of things. And additionally to improve the lead and the first paragraph. Look on the WTA page if needs.
Thanks, KnowIG (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: An interesting article about an important event in professional tennis history. But the article needs a lot of attention if it is to brought up to a good standard. Here are some general issues that need fixing:-
- We have "women's only" and "women only" in the first paragraph
- You should not simply state that the distribution of prize money at tennis events was unfair. That reads as opinion. You need to qualify thus: "The tournament was held to protest against what was perceived by women players as the unfair distribution of prize money at tennis events."
- Amplify "a 12:1 ratio split in prize money" a little. It's explained later, but we need to know what this mwans from the beginning.
- Sponsorship was from Philip Morris, not "Virginia Slims" which was a brand name, not an organisation.
- Being pedantic, a £2,500 to £750 ratio is 2.67:1, not 2.5:1
- Give the year in which Heldman underwrote the National Indoor Championships
- The article begins with the statement that the 1970 Houston Women's Invitation was the first women only tournament. But apparently Heldman staged three women's only tournaments in winter 1969.
- "Kramer", not "Krammer"
- "Fed Cup" was known as "Federation Cup" before 1995
However, the main problem is with the prose which is often carelessly written, with frequent bad grammar and repetitive phrasing. I have also corrected several typos. The following are examples that need attention, but a complete copyedit of the prose should be undertaken, if you are interested in taking the article further.
- "The tournament was the first women only tournament and was created by Gladys Heldman." → "The tournament, the first for women only, was created by Gladys Heldman."
- By the 1970s, the pay which had been 2.5:1 ratio between men and women increased." Do you mean the ratio had increased? And is "pay" the right term for prize money?
- Don't add "as well" to sentences
- "She contacted the Houston Racquet Club and the Texas Lawn Tennis Association about her idea and within days had created as $5,000 tournament for eight women." Something wrong ("had created as"), but more explanation is needed. For example, where did the $5,000 come from?
- "When Heldman first told Kramer of her tournament, he stated that he would not oppose the tournament." Unnecessary repetition, rephrase. And again in the next sentence ("take place/taking place").
The above points give you stuff to work on. If you need to discuss this review, please contact my talkpage as I am not watching individual peer reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)