Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suzanne Lenglen/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2021 [1].

Suzanne Lenglen

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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). I nominated the same article last month and it was archived only for not receiving enough reviews. Now that there aren't any other recent nominations of sports articles (or French articles) at FAC, I'm hoping it will be easier to find reviewers. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, if promoted, needs to be adjusted at WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Images are mostly too big, causing sandwiching. Most images, certainly photographs (maps and charts sometimes need to be bigger for readability), should be no bigger than upright=1. If you like to see images bigger than that, it's best to adjust your own display preferences accordingly (in Preferences#Appearance), rather than scaling images up. (t · c) buidhe 06:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The larger upright values are for the more horizontal images. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What settings are you using in your preferences? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have mine set at 250px and this is what it looks like: File:Suzanne Lenglen article.png If you need to use more than upright=1 for mostly vertical images such as these ones, that's a sign that you should adjust your settings. (t · c) buidhe 08:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That screenshot is helpful, thanks! I use 220px, which I assume is the default since I've never changed it? I guess 250px would mean all of the images are about 14% larger than I intended. I'd rather follow the default settings since I assume that is what most readers would use (especially those who don't even have accounts). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's true, but on 220px it is not significantly different, and I am still seeing sandwiching. Per MOS, "When specifying upright= values greater than 1, take care to balance the need to reveal detail against the danger of overwhelming surrounding article text." Many of these images don't have such fine details that you need to show to make the large size worthwhile. Particularly in the "1926: Match of the Century" where the scaled-up image just blots out the paragraph. (t · c) buidhe 09:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tall and skinny images don't work so well in infoboxes in general. I've redone the crop to be more square, hopefully you are happy with it. (t · c) buidhe 06:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what way don't they work so well? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had tried something similar before; it doesn't work to crop out the ground because then you can't tell that she is jumping. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you can't see the rest of the infobox, the image is taking up too much space; I can only see a few lines of it on my screen.
          • The new crop you made is a little better than the first one you made. Still, I don't particularly like it because it comes at the cost of the zoom not being as good. Tennis infoboxes at least (and probably most sports infoboxes) are all too long to fit on the page. I'm not so sure it's worth lowering the aspect ratio of the image to make a few extra lines of the infobox more visible to the reader, given that they are probably going to need to scroll down if they want to read the rest of the infobox anyway. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article is a bit on the long side, would benefit from more aggressive summary style in places, I think. (t · c) buidhe 08:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to use Babe Ruth as a comparison as the most similar FA (in terms of a very accomplished athlete from that time period with a long-lasting legacy on their sport). That article was 82000+ characters / 14000+ words when it was promoted. This article is much shorter at 66000+ characters / 11000+ words, which is also a little bit longer than the general guidelines, but I think it's worth it given the importance and intricacies of the subject. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review (non-book sources only)
  • What makes the following sources high quality RS?
  • https://sabr.org/research/article/mlbs-annual-salary-leaders-since-1874/ This source is used to make an OR comparison that doesn't seem to be made in any of the sources
    • The Engelmann book makes this exact comparison (which I had forgot to add, apparently. Just added it, good catch!). Besides that, I included the online source as a duplicate for convenience for people who don't want to use the book. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the top women's players nearly all kept their amateur status, women were largely left out of both the travelling exhibition tours and the growing professional tournaments after Lenglen's playing career ended. The next significant exhibition tour to feature women's tennis players did not occur until 1941" could not verify in the cited source
  • "Lenglen is honoured in a variety of ways at Stade Roland Garros, the site of the modern French Open. The second show court, which was built in 1994 with a capacity of about 10000, was named Court Suzanne Lenglen in 1997" could not verify, not sure if the source is high-quality RS anyway
  • "Fellow top-ranked players Pauline Betz and Althea Gibson followed Marble by turning professional in 1947 and 1958 respectively. Betz played on two tours... another in 1951 against Gussie Moran." cannot verify in source, which only discusses Betz in detail and doesn't mention "1951"
  • "Lenglen had a versatile all-court game." failed verification
  • Do any of the books give an exact height?
  • "The following year, Lenglen ended the norm of women competing in clothes not suited for playing tennis..." a long paragraph cited to 3 sources makes it difficult to verify. Can you break this up to clarify which content is supported by which source?
    • They all state that main point. The Engelmann book is the most detailed. I can break it up if needed? The reason I didn't do it before is because it will be very repetitive (most of the sentences are supported by multiple sources). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of newspapers to cover her death, this is probably OK, but do the secondary sources cover it and what the press reported at the time? The problem with "reported" and citing a couple newspapers is that it only shows that two newspapers reported it that way (and should probably be attributed, "Newspapers X and Y reported...") Using a secondary source would get around this problem.
    • The book sources agree on how they cover her death. However, they also use something along the lines of "newspapers reported that". As the Sports Illustrated source explains, it could very well be the case that those reports were wrong. At the same time, we don't have much better information today. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lenglen was referred to by the French press as notre Suzanne (our Suzanne) and universally called La Divine (The Goddess), embodying her mythical persona and perceived infallibility at tennis." Are these nicknames really WP:DUE in the lead? (t · c) buidhe 08:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Amakuru. I reviewed this article in detail at the previous nomination page here, and everything I wrote there still stands. On the issue of article length mentioned by Buidhe above, I did consider that this might be an issue when I did my review, and per WP:TOOBIG it is at the point where it "probably should be divided". I think there is some repetition that could maybe be avoided, for example her rivalry with Mallory is effectively covered twice, in both the history and the dedicated rivalries section. In fact, you could conceivably remove "Rivalries" altogether and just fold any important detail into history where it's not already covered. I decided not to oppose on that basis though because it's borderline, the article is otherwise excellent, and the guideline does encourage us not to be in a massive hurry to split. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

This article is far too long. Looking at WP:LENGTH, if the level of detail present in, say, "Rivalries", is desired then a separate article on this should be span off per WP:DETAIL. the section could then either be summarised or included elsewhere per Amakuru's suggestion above. There are other opportunities to similarly reduce the size of what should be a parent article.

I removed some of the statements in the rivalries section that were repetitive with the amateur career section, as Amakuru had commented on. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separately to this, the article is not written in a sufficiently summary style. In virtually every paragraph after "Early life" there are opportunities to tighten the language. It would benefit from a thorough copy edit to convey the message in each paragraph in a more succinct, punchier and clearer way.

Regretfully, these two issues cause me to believe that this article is not currently ready for FAC and that the work suggested above should be carried out off FAC and the article then resubmitted. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, can you give examples with one or two subsections (preferably one in the "Amateur career" section, and one in another section)? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, although please accept that this may be a little rough. So, plucking a paragraph at random:

In the middle of the year, Lenglen won the triple crown at the World Hard Court Championships, the French Championships, and Wimbledon. At the World Hard Court Championships, she came close to losing a set to Kathleen McKane in her singles semifinal. saving two set points before winning the set 10–8. After she only needed to play three challenge round matches to defend her three titles at the French Championships, Lenglen agreed to forgo the challenge round system and be included in the Wimbledon main draw at the request of the tournament organisers. Prior to the singles final, she lost more than one game in a set three times, once in a 7–5 second set against McKane in the second round, the second time in an 8–6 second set against Ryan in the quarterfinals, and the last in a 6–4 first set versus Irene Peacock in the semifinals. Mallory won the other semifinal to set up a rematch of their U.S. National Championship meeting. Like in the United States, Mallory won the first two games of the final. However, Lenglen rebounded and won the next twelve games for her fourth Wimbledon singles title. The match only lasted 26 minutes, making it the shortest final in Wimbledon history.

1,191 characters. A quick copy edit suggests (to me) something like

In the middle of the year, Lenglen won the triple crown of the World Hard Court Championships, the French Championships, and Wimbledon. Lenglen agreed to forgo the challenge round system and be included in the Wimbledon main draw at the request of the tournament organisers. Prior to the singles final, she lost more than one game in a set three times. Mallory won the other semifinal to set up a rematch of their U.S. National Championship meeting. As in the United States, Mallory won the first two games of the final. However, Lenglen rebounded and won the next twelve games for her fourth Wimbledon singles title. The match only lasted 26 minutes, making it the shortest final in Wimbledon history.

702 characters. Readers who want further detail will be able to click through to the original text – which has, to my eye, not a lot wrong with it at the appropriate level – at a new article: "Suzanne Lenglen's amateur career". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the "Honours" section:

Lenglen is honoured in a variety of ways at Stade Roland Garros, the site of the modern French Open. The second show court, which was built in 1994 with a capacity of about 10000, was named Court Suzanne Lenglen in 1997. There is a bronze relief statue of Lenglen outside the court as well, which was erected in 1994. The FFLT had originally planned to erect a statue of Lenglen immediately after her death, but this plan never materialized due to the start of World War II later that year. Additionally, one of the main entrances to the ground is Porte Suzanne Lenglen, which leads to Allée Suzanne Lenglen. This alley had previously been a road, Rue Suzanne Lenglen, before the grounds were expanded in 1984. Moreover, the women's singles championship trophy was named the Coupe Suzanne Lenglen in 1987. In spite of her success at the French Championships, Lenglen never competed at Stade Roland Garros as it did not become the site for the tournament until 1928 after her retirement from amateur tennis.

1,006 words. This could be slimmed to

Lenglen is honoured at Stade Roland Garros, the site of the modern French Open: the second show court was named after her in 1997, with a bronze relief statue of Lenglen outside the court. One of the main entrances to the ground is Porte Suzanne Lenglen, which leads to Allée Suzanne Lenglen. This alley had previously been a road, Rue Suzanne Lenglen, before the grounds were expanded in 1984. Moreover, the women's singles championship trophy was named the Coupe Suzanne Lenglen in 1987. Lenglen never competed at Stade Roland Garros as it did not become the site for the tournament until 1928, after her retirement from amateur tennis.

(638 words) without, in my opinion, losing anything essential. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I make it 59kB. Nevertheless I consider that large parts, arguably most, of the article is not written in a sufficiently summary style, to the point that I believe it fails criteria 4 and arguably 1a. Sorry, but I am not inclined to go through over 10,000 words pointing out each one that I believe to be an insufficient summary. I note that the one paragraph from outside "Amateur career" which I randomly selected to look at in more detail - and it honestly was a random selection - is now 13% shorter. A similar tightening of the rest may well give a sufficiently summary style. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, what does "you make it 59kb?" mean? And can you comment on the changes I made? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "the article is down to 60.5 kb"; my page size calculator reckons the readable text to be 59kB, slightly less than you have.
Okay, I'm just using the Wikipedia tool. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which changes you would like me to comment on. Just this? Or all of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, the second one (all of the changes, which mainly cover the amateur career section). Though, as above, I don't think you actually need to comment on the whole thing. At least in the amateur career section, seeing the types of changes you would want for a few paragraphs would probably be indicative of the changes you would want for the whole thing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I consider pretty much all of them to be improvements. There are a few places which could use a light copy edit (eg "Often playing in front of sell-out crowds and having been acquainted with many prominent social figures, she is recognized as the first female athlete to become a global sport celebrity" is a little clunky and "in that the public no longer perceived her to be unbeatable" is not grammatical) but IMO the article is the better for the changes you have made. I will come up with some suggestions; if I haven't come back with them in a day or two feel free to ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Gog the Mild as a reminder, as requested. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked on my talk page to look in. I don't have time for a full review, regrettably. I think it's more tightly written than it was, but possibly more text could be cut. Consider for example, "Lenglen's performance at the French Championships set the stage for her debut at the World Hard Court Championships, one of the major tournaments recognized by the International Lawn Tennis Federation at the time.[7] She won the singles final against Germaine Golding for her first major title. She was only challenged in her opening match against Phyllis Satterthwaite and her semifinal against Suzanne Amblard, needing an 8–6 score to win the second set in the former and losing the second set in the latter. Her volleying ability was instrumental in defeating Amblard, while her ability to outlast Golding in long rallies gave her the advantage in the final." Do we really need that level of detail about the tournament, especially the early rounds?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay.

  • "Lenglen dominated Browne on the tour, winning all 33 of the best-of-three set matches played to completion. After the ninth stop, Pyle tried to make the matches more competitive by offering Browne a $100 bonus any time she could win four games. She regularly earned this bonus afterwards, despite having only won four games against Lenglen in two of the nine matches before it was instituted. Overall, Browne won two sets against Lenglen, the first in the second set at the 33rd stop. She also won the only set they played at the 36th stop, where Lenglen had decided to play just a one set match in spite of being ill to avoid disappointing the fans. She remained sick and did not play on any of the last four nights of the tour. Browne also nearly won a set at the 23rd stop, losing 9–11, at which point Lenglen decided not to continue"
The first sentence is fine. The rest is not in summary style and needs condensing or removing. Personally I see no need for anything beyond "Lenglen dominated Browne on the tour, winning all 33 of the best-of-three set matches played to completion. After the ninth stop, Pyle tried to make the matches more competitive by offering Browne a $100 bonus any time she could win four games. She regularly earned this bonus afterwards, despite having only won four games against Lenglen in two of the nine matches before it was instituted. Overall, Browne won two sets against Lenglen".
I believe there is a policy on Wikipedia to include extra detail when explaining misconceptions. Some sources erroneously state that Lenglen was 38–0 on the tour, even though she didn't play 38 matches (mainly because she was sick) and wasn't undefeated (losing the one-set fill-in match, and losing the match she didn't finish), hence the need for the detail. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three points from a paragraph in a different section:

  • "In the 1919 Wimbledon final against Lambert Chambers, Lenglen's father gave her cognac at two separate points in the match. On the first occasion, he threw a vial onto the court from the stands without anyone realizing what it contained at that moment." Delete "in the match" and "at that moment".
  • "Both instances helped Lenglen as she won the next three games following the second set incident and then took a 4–1 lead in the third set after receiving more cognac in-between sets." Reduce to 'Both instances helped Lenglen'. (I would make it 'Both instances seemed to help Lenglen' unless there is a consensus among RSs that the brandy definitely made the difference.
  • If I cut those parts, the reader won't understand the significance of how much it helped Lenglen. (This is an extremely normal way to write something like this out. Have you been watching the Australian Open? e.g. Something similar happened a few days ago, where taking a medical timeout helped a player win a match. It wouldn't be complete to write only that statement in an article, without also specifying when the medical timeout was, what the score was at the time, and how the matched finished. Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to tell if it really made a difference.)
  • I would say the RSs are pretty clear on that. Part of the reason why they are clear is that every time she asked for cognac, her situation in the match immediately improved. The one time she asked for it and didn't receive it is the only time she lost a match after the war. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, at the very least, the USLTA did not provide Lenglen with alcohol during her retirement loss to Mallory" This is unclear. Why "however? Why "at the very least"? Had they provided alcohol on other occasions? If not, why the need to specify that they had not this time? Do you mean that they prevented her from accessing and/or consuming alcohol during this match, contrary to their previous policy? If not, why is it mentioned?
  • Noted in passing: The caption "Lenglen leaping balletically to hit a volley". Is there an RS describing this image as "balletic", or similar? In which case could a cite be added.

The examples of non-summary style are just that and, for the avoidance of doubt, far from an exhaustive list of paragraphs which I feel need trimming. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I'm not saying you're wrong about everything you want to remove, but if you don't post more suggestions, we'll never know for sure. You don't need to literally rewrite every paragraph you want to comment on, as you have done above. Simply listing the material you want removed should suffice (and I imagine that would be easier for you to do). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in the place of the above edits, you could instead list out:

In the US professional tour section, I don't think you need to state:

  • which sets Browne won
  • that Lenglen missed several matches because she was sick
  • that Browne almost won a third set

Then, I could respond in-line:

  • which sets Browne won
    • The point of identifying the first set is to emphasize that Lenglen went 32 matches against Browne without losing a set.
    • The point of identifying the second set is to emphasize that it wasn't supposed to be a regular three-set match like nearly all of the other matches they played. Beyond that, it was also the only clear win for Browne where she won a set. At the same though, because it wasn't supposed to be a real match, it wasn't a real loss for Lenglen. In that sense, Lenglen only really lost one set on the tour in the real three-set matches.
  • that Lenglen missed several matches because she was sick
    • The point of stating this is to emphasize that even though the tour was 40 stops, Lenglen didn't play 40 matches (or even 38, as is normally reported in older sources). She only played 36 of the stops.
  • that Browne almost won a third set
    • Many older sources typically report that Lenglen was 38–0 on this tour. This match is worth including because it was the only three-set match Lenglen lost (as in, she retired from the match, like her 1921 loss). It is not enough to just state that though, because the reader shouldn't be left with the impression that Browne won a completed match, or even a set in this match.

Alternatively, if you don't want to address my comments, I suppose that's fine as well. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comments by Z1720

[edit]

I know this is going to be frustrating, but I also think the article is too long. My first impression when I opened the article was "Ack! The lede is so large!" Here are some examples of the lede that can be reduced:

  • "youngest major champion in tennis history as well as her elegant style of play and exuberant personality." Replace with " youngest major champion in tennis history, her elegant style and exuberant personality."
  • "Often playing in front of sell-out crowds and various prominent social acquaintances, she is recognized as the first female athlete to become a global sport celebrity." to "She is recognized as the first female athlete to become a global sport celebrity, playing to sell-out crowds and social acquaintances."
  • The WWI information in the lede can be removed as I don't see it as important to her biography. (It's not particularly notable that an athlete suspended their career during WWI; this was common.)
    • I don't know how familiar you are with sports (Are you familiar with sports?), but if someone has a much shorter career than normal (and in particular, if they missed years in their prime), it's usually important to explain why. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's important to mention the WWI break in the body, but I am unsure why this is so important that it needs to be in the lede. Remember: the longer the lede, the less likely a reader will remember the information. What is the most important information that needs to be in the lede? Everything else should be cut. Another option is to condense this information to "After suspending her career during WWI" which will remove a sentence of information. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the lede disorganised, as the timeline of events jumps around a lot. Although the notability needs to be established at the beginning of the article, a whole paragraph is excessive for describing notability. Instead, highlight the most important aspects of her career in the first sentence and start her biography with her birth in the second sentence. Another example is her death, which is buried in the middle of the fourth paragraph. I recommend that the biography be the first two paragraphs of the lede, and the last paragraph be her legacy (yes, I am recommending three paragraphs for the lede).

  • I agree the lead is a little bit long, and I'd be happy to shorten it a bit (and have just done so!). Overall though, I think the four-paragraph structure is normal. The whole thing isn't intended to be in chronological order, only the second paragraph. It's structured as: (1) main profile, (2) career in chronological order, (3) overall accomplishments, (4) legacy/miscellaneous. I copied the format from other sports FAs (such as Babe Ruth and Michael Jordan), and many sport GAs for top athletes follow this format as well. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also a very normal thing to state someone's death in the penultimate sentence of the lead and then follow that up with how they were honoured in the very last sentence. I could also leave out when she died altogether, as it's not particularly important and already mentioned in the first sentence and the infobox. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not interpret your suggested format when I read the lede. I don't think you need a "main profile" section: the whole lede is the main profile. A miscellaneous section (combined with legacy) contributes to the disorganised feeling. Overall achievements can be combined with the bio section to make it chronological. It is difficult to find information in the lede because of its format and a chronological format is one way to rectify this. The lede should include a sentence that explains how she died. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the chronological format is that it doesn't emphasize key accomplishments. If you don't have expertise in the topic, you won't be able to tell what's most important. And even if you have expertise in the topic, you still have to figure out what's important for yourself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also noting that you do the equivalent thing in your own GA: The start of the second paragraph "Development began in 1996 and took three years" is the equivalent of starting the second paragraph in this article with: "Coached primarily by her father Charles throughout her career, Lenglen began playing tennis at 11 years old". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also looking at the headings of the article, and I see that you have sections for every year from 1919-1927 (with two sections for 1926 and 1927). Although I haven't read through the article yet, I am sceptical that the information cannot be merged into two or three sections (Pre-WWI amateur career, post-WWI amateur career and professional career?) The long sections are not appealing to a reader, which is who we are writing Wikipedia form.

  • I agree in general. Normally, I combine years into longer sub-sections (like in Kim Clijsters). However, I didn't do it here because I thought it would make the section headers more difficult to follow. For example, combining "1919–21: Wimbledon debut, Olympic title, only post-WWI loss" seems less helpful because "Wimbledon debut" happened in 1919, "Olympic title" in 1920, and "only post-WWI loss" in 1921, but you wouldn't realize that with a combined header. If I reduced it to "1919–21: Classic Wimbledon final, only post-WWI loss", it would still have that same issue. It wasn't a problem with Clijsters because the highlights of one year were almost always related to what happened in the adjacent year(s). That isn't the case with Lenglen, though. Every year seems separate. Moreover, every year really does have one main highlight (except 1926, which has two; and 1912–14, part of which is combined). I could combine 1912–13 with 1914, but I wouldn't end up writing the prose so differently if I did that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are suggesting the years (or sets of years) should be sections instead of sub-sections, that's not consistent with standard practice for virtually all sports articles, including FAs. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-WWI amateur career, post-WWI amateur career and professional career? <<<=== This would be unbalanced because of the number of years that would fit in each section (3, 8, and 2). The bulk of her career (roughly 80 to 90%) was her post-WWI amateur career. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The titles do not have to include her achievements, like Wimbledon debut or Olympic title. The sections do not have to be balanced; if there's more important information in the post-WWI career, then that section should be longer. Some of these paragraphs can be combined together, and possibly removed. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Including achievements in the titles makes it easier to convey the highlights of her career without having to read the whole section. It also helps the reader find the important things mentioned in the lead and the infobox. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to help with a rewrite, but I don't know if we can complete it quickly enough to get it passed as a FAC right now. It'll depend on how quickly you can rewrite parts of the article. I can also take a deeper dive into the article over the weekend when I have more time. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not worried about the time constraints. I can reply to things quickly. Even if the coordinators were to close the nomination for some reason, I would just end up re-nominating and you could always continue commenting on the article talk page if you don't want to wait until then. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the coordinators closed the nomination, I would recommend opening another PR. FAC reviewers have little patience for candidates that require rewrites being nominated. FACs should be so well developed that they only require minor edits to be promoted. Rewrites are not minor edits. It is better to resolve the issues first, then nominate it. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the comments above have convinced me that this article is in need of a major rewrite. I don't even think anyone else is asking for that. Gog noted that cuts in the realm of 13% might be sufficient, and I've already cut 10% of the whole article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Z1720! I appreciate your quick interest in commenting! (especially if you just noticed this on the urgent list?) I don't know if you have done this already, but I would probably recommend looking at other recent or high-quality sport biography FAs for top athletes, and also going through the whole article. (I certainly have never done an FAC or GAN review where I didn't look at example FAs/GAs in the same area, or didn't read the whole article before starting to comment. The main reason I'm skeptical of Gog's comments above, aside from the fact that they did not leave too many comments, is that I don't think they did either of those things.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I found this article from the urgents list. I have read many FAs lately, including sports bios (I'm participating in the URFA/2020 project, so I have read many FA articles of various quality) and I'm currently reviewing another sports bio FAC. You mentioned Babe Ruth and Michael Jordon above as articles you used as a template for this article. Keep in mind that Ruth passed FA in 2014 and Jordon in 2007: FA standards have changed (especially since 2007) and there are going to be differences.
  • FAC has definitely changed since 2007. But since 2014? I'm less convinced of that. If Wehwalt were to tell me that in hindsight, they think the Babe Ruth article should be cut to <60kb instead of 80kb, I would be more inclined to make my own articles shorter. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of when those articles were promoted, what are your thoughts on those two leads? Do you think they are easy to follow? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give Gog more credit on their FA expertise: Gog has reviewed over 200 articles for FAC and they are knowledgable on what an FAC is. I note that I am the fifth editor in this FAC that has expressed concern on the article's length and suggested cutting or dividing the article. If that many reviewers were saying that in my FAC, I would seriously consider if they are correct. I am glad to see you have started doing this after some comments above, but in my opinion, more needs to be cut and paragraphs need to be merged. I suggest looking at these redundancy exercises to see if you can remove text from this article.
    • Three of the five editors of who have made that suggestion have never written a sports article (Gog in particular is adamant they "don't do most things which could even loosely be described as culture or sport"). Of the two that have, one didn't have to time to review and the other still supported promotion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Gog is not leaving specific comments because they acknowledge that if it were in fact the case that length is an issue, they don't have the expertise to comment on it without putting in a ton of effort. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done those exercises before (and looked at them again now). I think Gog is suggesting removing excess content more than removing excess words related to grammatical issues. Nonetheless, I can go through the grammatical side again. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you familiar with sports in general? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also do a brutal edit of this article: delete everything that is not absolutely necessary and remove too much text. If a section doesn't support the larger narrative about this person you are trying to tell, delete it. Afterwards, ask editors if something is missing and they will tell you what they are confused about. Since the text will be in an older version of the article, you can easily put that text back in the article. This exercise might help you determine what can be cut from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to discuss the rationale for why any of the material currently in the article is important enough to be included. I don't expect any major revision to be warranted at this point, especially now that I've already cut 10% of the article and it actually is at my original target length of 60kb. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to oppose this FAC at this time for not fulfilling some of the featured article criteria, specifically 2a and 4. Although I am happy with editors disagreeing with me, it seems like my major concerns are being summarily rejected. Instead of a discussion of how to improve the article, my comments are met with an analysis of the abilities/credentials of reviewers and an analysis of my work, specifically comparing an FAC of a sports biography to a video game GA. I am going to remove this review from my watchlist, but I welcome another reviewer or the FAC coordinators pinging me if there are major changes that address my concerns above. Z1720 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to FAC coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: please withdraw the nomination, thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2021 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Suzanne_Lenglen/archive3&oldid=1010535791"