Talk:2008 Tennis Masters Cup

]
 Done--

I would like to help out as much as I can here (given usual time constraints). One thing that strikes me, and will strike the people at FAC, is that all references are more of less from the ATP.com. While it is in my view a reliable source, it still gives the article an aura of being the "official" version of the tournament. There should be tons of references from third-party sources that can, and should, substitute and supplement the current references.

About citations templates, the only thing that should not be mixed is the "citation" template and the "cite xxx" template. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 19:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let me say that I am very impressed with this article you've written here, and I think it deserves to become our first tournament GA/FA. Best of luck with that.

But I feel that there's something that needs to be addressed here, namely, how content is split between a tournament article and its event articles (so in this case, between

Your idea got me thinking. Writing summaries in individual draw pages to bring them to FL seems possible, and a good idea, but perhaps is this the moment to really think about splitting the main article. Indeed, when editing 2008 Tennis Masters Cup, I keep seeing the message "This page is 115 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size", the 2008 Tennis Masters Cup article is among the 1000 longest articles on Wikipedia, and the idea of splitting long main articles of tennis events has been raised in the 2008 US Open peer review. I really like this 2008 Tennis Masters Cup article as it is, but perhaps it would better, to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, to move the day by day summaries into the individual draw pages, and write new, shorter summaries for the main article, to keep it under 90/100 kilobytes.

I'm not particularly convinced with my own proposal, because I fear it might not look good to have a somewhat detailed article in the "Qualification" and "Build-up" sections, and then a summary for a "Competition" section, but if we could work that out, it would solve the size problem for the main article, give enough substance to the individual draw pages to bring them to FL, or even perhaps FA, and create, should this article ever reach GA or FA, a good template for future tennis tournaments we would like to bring to GA/FA.

So, is the size of this article really a problem, or, would the size of a Grand Slam article with detailed day by day text for men's singles, women's singles, men's doubles, women's doubles, mixed doubles, boys' singles, boys' doubles, girls' singles, girls' doubles, senior events, and wheelchair events be a problem ? What do you think ? Of course, I'm going with the idea that all tennis tournaments article should follow the same format, whether they are Grand Slam events, year-end championships, or Masters 1000, but perhaps they shouldn't. --

Oxford St. (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, here's what I would do if I was given complete control. I find it odd that you'd put the day-by-day stuff into the sub-articles, but leave the qualification and build-up stuff in the main. What I would do is put the lot into the sub-articles, and then summarise the lot in the main. This way, each of the 3 articles have consistent levels of detail within themselves, and hopefully none of the articles will be too long.

I'm not sure what doing this would do, however, to the listiness of the sub-articles. I suspect in this case they would in fact become articles, as the draws are very short and so the text would come to dominate. But with for example

2008 US Open - Men's Singles, the draw is much longer, so it could go either way, and in fact there's also a real risk that the new sub-article would be too long. The only football comparison I could find is 1930 FIFA World Cup - rst20xx (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

*By this, I mean that I don't want to template the structure. I don't like the application of templates on other sports articles because it discourages editors from attempting something innovative, and assumes the reader needs a set structure to understand. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. My point was that, should this article get to GA/FA, it would be impossible to use it as an example for Grand Slam articles - but I guess you're right, and different formats for different articles, different types of tournaments would be better. And anyway the point that the Grand Slam draws are already over 50kb, and would be well over the 100kb mark should there be text added to them is right, and simply splitting in that way can't be a good solution. I guess this article can stay as is it, and, to get back to Rst20xx's original query, we could still add some text to the draw pages to push them to FL - your input on how do it, and that of

Oxford St. (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, I think what Yohan euan o4 says makes a lot of sense - different tourneys merit different approaches. Related question though - should draw pages be considered lists instead of articles? Because if this is generally the case, then there is a LOT of class assessment that can be done... rst20xx (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they should be considered lists. They are, in a way, lists of results. Do you any know any sports results pages which resemble tennis draws ? --

Oxford St. (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Erm. No. lol. Best comparisons I can give are things like

WP:FOOTY hasn't really made a decision either. Anyway, I would say that they should be considered lists, I really don't see them growing into standard articles - rst20xx (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that, in most cases, they would be lists, even if some adjustments need to be made for bigger events (although I can see problem here). They are lists in practice anyway—on most occasions that I've seen information being added to an event, it's to the main article (this is how I do it anyhow). This being the case, I don't think it is for three editors to make the decision that they aren't. I think it benefits the reader to know where any extra information will show up (as standard), and means less work for editors, because otherwise there's the potential (if they aren't classed as lists), for a lot of information to be duplicated. (Sorry about all the parentheses). Yohan euan o4 (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dabomb87 says on

What is the status of this? Is the article going to be split off? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now. I'll put the article to Peer Review after it passes GA (it if does), and we'll see what to do then. --

Oxford St. (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:2008 Tennis Masters Cup/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll follow my usual approach of dealing with "high-level" issues like coverage and structure before the nitty-gritty, and leave the lead until any issues wiht the main content have been resolved. --Philcha (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What should go in what article

I see some discussion at Talk:2008 Tennis Masters Cup of which details should go in which articles, the other articles concerned being

• Rules for selecting participants, especially any changes since the 2007 cycle. If the rules and any changes for 2008 are identical for sigles and doubles, then they should mainly be covered in
  2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Doubles
  . BTW should mention that these end-of season events are for men - are there any for women, and is there one for mixed doubles?
• Structure of tournament - round-robin and knock-out stages. If you can find reliable sources, comparison with the structure of the finals stage of the FIFA World Cup or similar events in other sports would be good. Once gain, if the structure is the same for singles and doubles, the details should be in 2008 Tennis Masters Cup.
• How the participants qualified, including the impact of withdrawals. Preferably a little briefer than at present.
• Draw and seeding.
• Results table.
• Any significant consequences, e.g. major changes in world rankings as a result of the tournament
• Summaries of matches, preferably a little briefer than here. Including any scheduling, fitness, personal or other relevant off-court issues. Also comment on any "revenge matches", or episodes in on-going rivalries or other "spice it up" factors. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd build up

I know I'm asking a lot, and I'm willing to be fairly patient. In the upside, you already have very nearly enough material for 3 GAs, provided the references stand up. Hopefully you can get 3 GAs for the price of 1 around the end of Jan 2009. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - are you sure that

2008 US Open - Men's Singles could ever be considered an article and not a list. Maybe you disagree though - either way, I'd like to hear your opinion, and this is the issue we were discussing above. Is it possible to build the pair up but still have them considered lists? Or maybe we should have different procedures for different tournaments? - rst20xx (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Those are very fair questions.

In

2008 Tennis Masters Cup - Doubles

I think the draws are small enough for the same article to accommodate both the text and the tables. Do you think there is any risk that either of the Masters tournaments will be increased in size?

The issue of setting a precedent is also important, as your comment at Talk:2008_Tennis_Masters_Cup#A_Query_From_rst20xx implies that at present there are no tournament GAs or FAs - which, as a moderate tennis fan, I hope will soon be remedied. However if this part of the discussion gets complex, a GA review is not the right place and I'd suggest it should be cut and pasted into Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis and continued there. If a more complex discussion takes a while, I'm prepared to wait a month for a consensus to emerge and for this article to be adapted to whatever consensus emerges.

Please note that my comments below are based only on the 2008 articles - I haven't checked my suggestions against previous years' tournaments.

I've had a look at

2008 Wimbledon Championships - Men's Singles

would be free to provide a text acount of the Men's Singles, but hopefully more briefly and concentrating on highlights such as upsets, comebacks (within matches), great matches, who was on form and who was not, psychology, incidents, etc. (and, in the case of Wimbledon, any resurgence of serve-and-volley). And so on for the other competitions. I'd expect a similar structure to work for the other Grand Slam tournaments.

With non-GS tournaments I'm not sure there's a one-size-fits-all structure - some have only one competiton (e.g. Mens' or Ladies' Singles) and some have more; some have large draws in each competition and some have small draws; etc.

Returning to the 2008 Tennis Masters Cup, the draws are currently quite small, so the text accounts, withdrawals, seedings and tables can fit in one article for each competition. And I expect that most years there's enough to write about in the top-level article, e.g. how the location was selected, whether the venue was existing / upgraded / new, whether any controversies arose or were resolved (e.g. about China getting both the 2008 Masters and the 2008 Summer Olympics, or any political protests during the 2008 Masters). --Philcha (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, it should summarise the two child articles... well I think what you wrote sounded very sensible, in my opinion you make some good suggestions, but I'm gonna leave this GAN alone now (enough hijacking on my part!), and wish the best of luck to all parties involved - rst20xx (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody doing anything about this? If I don't see a response in the next 4 days I will have to assess this as "failed GA". --Philcha (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching this but don't have time to help out (nor did I write the article at all). I have, however, left notes on the talkpages of the three main editors for this article. The principle editor,

Oxford St., hasn't edited since December, and his talkpage says he's on a short Wikibreak, but also that "he will swiftly answer any message concerning the GA nomination of 2008 Tennis Masters Cup, though." rst20xx (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I was pinged to come here. Oxford St. did all the work; the only reason I am involved with the article is becuase he asked me to copy-edit the article. I got through about half of it, but then a discussion about the article's length and use of summary style arose. I stopped copy-editing after that, and have not been involved with its progress since. I cannot help with anything to do with content. Unfortunately, Oxford has not edited since December 31, and it looks like the article will fail GA for now. Hopefully, he will return soon. The problem is, this is such a large article and as such, GA reviewers are loathe to touch it. This article was at GAN without a review for nearly two months. Who knows how long it will take next time? When Oxford returns, we should resolve the above issues before resubmitting. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I am in a position as Rst20xx here as I haven't worked on the article, nor was I involved in any sort of discussion. But having a look at this now and the discussion on talk page, I see this is not going to be an easy ride. Particularly with the absence of the principle editor. I am also bewildered by the choice to go to GA first instead of PR. What are your thoughts on this? ^LeaveSleaves 22:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to PR it would be necessary to close this review with a "fail", as 2 concurrent reviews is a recipe for chaos, and an admin close of this review (so that no "fail" showed up) would remove the comments so far, which I think any PR should consider.

The article was nominated for GA review on 17 November 2008 and waited 2½ months before I set out to review it. I notice Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis has an Assessment Department but it does not seem to work all that fast. There's no sign of any Wikiproject review at Talk:2008 Tennis Masters Cup, and no PR section that I can see at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. If I were a main editor of this article I'd have gone straight for GA review, as my own experience of asking for PRs has not been encouraging. I know from looking around that I'm more patient than most GA reviewers, provided I see signs of action - and I'm a tennis fan, in a minor way.

OTOH if you can get a few Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis members to promise on their kids' / mothers' / a significant others' lives to review it pronto, that would be fine. In that case I think the first priority should be how to structure a package of articles about the tournament - as I said, if the refs stand up there's at least 2 GAs' worth of material. --Philcha (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you correctly noted, WP:Tennis is in disarray. Due to excessive edit wars, debates and other such problems, there are very few active editors left there. The project has no effective structure in place and at present has zero GA/FAs. The only GA it had in its life was removed not long ago. That's actually the reason why I jumped here so quickly. I was aware that this was underway and just didn't want it lose for lack of workers. But I wasn't expecting such a dire situation this GA is in. A PR won't exactly have ideal participation, but I feel there are a few participants who could be able to contribute to a certain effect. I would try and start implementing your suggestions, but I doubt I'd able to work enough to get it in place soon enough, not without the help of its principle editor. Now I know this is not my place to say this, but I think you should let this review slide for now. Should Oxford St. fail to turn up soon enough, we'd let this one go, regroup and renominate again with the concerns addressed. ^LeaveSleaves 01:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for responding. I'll wait a week to see if Oxford St. or anyone else takes it on. If not, I'll issue a "fail" - which would be sad, because the main problem is that there's too much good stuff here. --Philcha (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* :( rst20xx (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me of Oxford St.'s retirement from WP. I said I'd wait a week, and that time's up too. Regretfully I have to conclude that this article has failed to reach GA level. However if the refs stand up there's 2 or perhaps nearly 3 GAs' worth of material here, and I hope someone goes for it. --Philcha (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - - please put GA review commments / response above this line - - - - - -

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/ao_day1.1.asp
  • In Jo-Wilfried Tsonga on 2011-05-11 01:38:36, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 Tennis Masters Cup on 2011-06-16 15:08:07, 404 Not Found

--

• http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/ao_thursday2.1.asp
  • In Jo-Wilfried Tsonga on 2011-05-11 01:38:36, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 Tennis Masters Cup on 2011-06-16 15:08:16, 404 Not Found

--

• http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/paris_sunday2.asp
  • In Jo-Wilfried Tsonga on 2011-05-11 01:38:36, 404 Not Found
  • In 2008 BNP Paribas Masters on 2011-06-16 12:30:17, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'
  • In 2008 Tennis Masters Cup on 2011-06-16 15:08:30, 404 Not Found

--

I have just modified 29 external links on 2008 Tennis Masters Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/bigthree.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/ao_friday2.1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910213216/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/murray_qualifies.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/murray_qualifies.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/ao_day1.1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081022123913/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/davydenko_qualifies.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/davydenko_qualifies.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/ao_sunday1.2.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/ao_friday1.2.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/ao_thursday2.1.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030061640/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/oneweektoplay.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/oneweektoplay.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113190127/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/erlichram_withdraw.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/erlichram_withdraw.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113185847/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/tsonga.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/tsonga.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/rome_saturday.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.atptennis.com/1/en/2008news/miami_thursdayqf.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2007/erlichram.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113190334/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_sunday.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_sunday.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114002504/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_sunday2.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_sunday2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113190431/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/doubles2.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/doubles2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113190259/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_monday.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_monday.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114060303/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_monday2.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_monday2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113185814/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/doubles3.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/doubles3.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113190704/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_tuesday.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_tuesday.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114002435/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_tuesday2.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/shanghai_tuesday2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114231940/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/doubles4.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/doubles4.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114173745/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/roddick_ankle.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/roddick_ankle.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081114173830/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/wednesday2.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/wednesday2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204035004/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/friday2.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/friday2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208034042/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/saturday2.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/saturday2.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201141119/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/doubles8.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/doubles8.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206022916/http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/final.asp to http://www.masters-cup.com/1/news/2008/final.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2008 Tennis Masters Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/media/reports/2008August18-NadalNo1.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7492517.stm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1221489064788
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081113114112/http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=151934 to http://tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=151934
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225715332511&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tennistalk.com/en/news/20081108/Kiefer_believes_in_miracles%3B_accepts_Shanghai_stand-in_role
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=152610

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]