Wikipedia:Peer review/2009 Sony Ericsson Open/archive1

2009 Sony Ericsson Open

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This is one of the very early articles related to tennis tournament to be listed for PR under new structure. I would like to take this article at least to GA, hoping that this structure can create FAs in the future. Comments are requested on the structure and limits (in terms of detail of tournament) of the article. And also on general improvement of the article. ^LeaveSleaves 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 03md (talk · contribs)

"event Miami Masters" --> "Miami Masters event"
'the' possibly needed before 2009 ATP World Tour and 2009 Sony Ericsson WTA Tour in the lede 'an' needed before ATP World Tour Masters 1000 in lede
"2000 Sony Ericsson Open was 25th edition of the Miami Masters tournament" - 2000 needs to be changed to 2009; 'the' needed before the number; 'the' before 2009 ATP World Tour
definite articles (i.e. the, a, an) are missing throughout the article
I have corrected errors in the "Tournament" and "Players" sections
"tiebreaker" should be changed to tiebreak

The quality of the prose is otherwise excellent and NPOV. Hope this helps. 03 md 19:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes enacted. Actually both tiebreaker and tiebreak are acceptable terms, but I've changed it to tiebreak to reflect consistency. I'm not particularly sure about usage of definite articles and would wait for others' comments before making changes. Thanks for your input. ^LeaveSleaves 19:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Should "first time winners" be "first-time winners"?
"...to win for their respective countries..." not sure about the way this sounds. These players aren't playing for their countries really. I know what you're saying, could you rephrase it somehow to reduce this implication?
25th or twenty-fifth? Why have both?
Lead says Crandon Park is in Key Biscayne, Tournament section says Crandon Park is in Miami. This (as we all know) is a serious bone of contention so I suppose consistency would be useful here!
"The tournament consisted of both men's and women's singles and doubles events. The events were played on 12 Laykold Cushion Plus hard courts.[2] " merge these two short sentences.
"$4,500,00" missing a zero methinks.
"men's and women's singles and doubles events" vs "and Doubles winning teams" capitalised or not?
"47 of top 50 players" - context? World top 50 I presume?
First few sentences of Players section are choppy and need merging/revision to run on as smooth and engaging prose.
"six players, including Lleyton Hewitt and Marcos Baghdatis were" comma after Baghdatis.
" Marina Erakovic – Tiantian Sun and Francesca Schiavone – Chan Yung-jan withdrew " took me three times to work out this sentence was implying a team of Erakovic and Sun, and a team of Schiavone and Yung-jan. Perhaps you could rephrase it subtly?
"suffered a hamstring during" hamstring injury presumably? And state that it led to his presumable withdrawal, hence the victory to his opponent.
"hard fought" should that be hyphenated?
"en route to fourth round" missing a "the" here.
"faced an uphill battle" you don't really explain why other than stating the scores - maybe expand by saying he was taken to tie break in both sets?
"Djokovic and Murray appeared in then seventh and fourth Masters final and 19th and 17th career finals. " do you mean "their" rather than "then"?
Not keen on starting a sentence with "But..."
Don't think you need the "Final score" subsection. I'd wrap it up (along with the other "Final score" bits) in a final summary section.
Women's section starts with two sentences containing "the second round".
"no. 3" could easily write number 3?
"Seeded players continued to lose with nine more eliminated in the third round. Second seed Dinara Safina, Vera Zvonareva and Ana Ivanovic were among the seeded players losing.[43][26]" merge these and sort references numerically.
"...Li coming out strong in the three set match..." what is "coming out strong" - do you mean she won? if so, state that.
Find a suitable link to the Williams sisters rivalry article here.
After Serena wins, you can refer to her as Williams, not Serena. It should be clear who you're referring to.
Your image captions need a full stop.
"along with third seed Mahesh Bhupathi – Mark Knowles" aren't these third seeds?
"Fisher — Huss" looks like an em-dash to me, while the others look like en-dashes. Could you check it please?
I think an explanatory note as to what "7–6(5)" actually means would be useful for non-tennis experts.
"4–6, 6–3, 10–3. " vs "4–6, 6–3, [10–3]." - which one and what does it mean?
Not necessarily relevant, but I'd suggest the Sony Ericsson Open template is made similar to the other tennis templates so it stacks nicely, i.e. full width, and change the awful green to that nicer grey shade.

Hope these comments help. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've enacted most of the changes suggested. Here are the reasons for suggestions I have passed on for the moment:

The doubles team conjunction (Player A – Player B): I understand your concern and I felt it too when used it in this fashion. The problem is I couldn't think of a better way. If I use a slash (/) instead of dash (–), I feel that wouldn't be too pleasing in the prose. Same is the case with repeated use of "and" for every team. Can you suggest a better method.
I added "Final score" part mostly as an at-a-glance result for the reader. Are you suggesting that we create a separate "Final summary" section? Because I feel it'll be mostly rehashing the lead, except for addition of scores.
I've kept Serena for the final's description mainly as a continued disambiguation to avoid confusion which Williams played.
I've tried to link most of the terminology over at Glossary of tennis. I think a description on representation of tiebreak score would be too detailed for this article. I feel it is fair to assume some minimal understanding of the scorelines with the help of links provided. ^LeaveSleaves 03:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]