Wikipedia:Peer review/Daniela Hantuchová/archive1

Daniela Hantuchová

• 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 April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like an view of the shortcomings of the article from some folks outside of the Tennis Wikiproject. I'm aware of the maintenance tags and citation issues but I would like some comments on the style of writing, the level of detail included, and anything else that may have an impact on getting this article up to GA standards.

Thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: While a lot of work has gone into this, it is nowhere near ready for GA. I agree that with the tags here are some suggestions for improvement.

• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself but as an example, Martina Navratilova being her mentor is only in the lead.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I think that the article may need fewer sections / header too. Please see WP:LEAD
• Watch overlinking - for example, Martina Hingis is linked four times in the article before the tables. See WP:OVERLINK
• I agree this needs many more refs - for example the 2002 and Endorsements sectrions have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The article is poorly organized and incomplete in its coverage - in "Personal life" we are not told anything about her birth or much about her family besides her parents' divorce. We do not learn when she started playing tennis (what year) or when she turned professional there either. Her long time coach Sears is not mentioned until 2003 - when did she start with him?
• I agree the level of detail in the article seems excessive in places, especially without references. Perhaps some of this material could be put into subarticles per WP:Summary style
• Captions of images need to be more descriptive.
• I have not really commented on the language as I think the article needs to be organized to tell a story chronologically and in less mind-numbing detail first.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oldelpaso

I agree with Ruhrfisch's points. Further comments:

• The lead seems incomplete. What has she won? Has she done anything of note in Grand Slams? Is she primarily a singles/doubles player? How long did she spend in the top ten? What is the "Partners for Success" program, and does it matter enough to be in the lead? The first paragraph has incomplete parentheses and a run on sentence.
• to father Igor, a computer scientist and mother Marianna, a toxicologist. something wrong with commas here, as to me it reads like she has three parents, Igor, Marianna and a computer scientist.
• Her tour debut and early results were auspicious. When was her tour debut? Why was it auspicious?
• Early life is more personal life. Of that section only her birth relates to her early life. The ref for the Wimbledon loss does not put her defeat solely down to her parents splitting.
• She is thought to be a perfectionist and places a lot of pressure on herself during her training. "Thought to be" is highly weaselly. I don't particularly follow tennis, but I would have thought any pro of note would try to make their training intense in some way.
• The Overall part of the career section reads more like a lead, in fact it is more like a lead more than the one currently serving as the actual lead of the article.
• Playing style. The original research tag is deserved. Totally uncited and makes a series of subjective claims.
• The jump from "doubles" to "2002" is highly disconcerting. The doubles section needs far more than one solitary citation.
• Hingis and Hantuchova only played once (reaching the semifinals of Miami) due to Hingis's subsequent injury which kept her out until Wimbledon. Thereafter she partnered Nadia Petrova and Ana Ivanović - Hingis or Hantuchova?
• 2002 was Hantuchová's breakout season; Through the start of the 2008 season; Hantuchová rebounded in the Tier I Charleston event Some of these examples, more of which occur throughout the article, might be valid American English for formal contexts, but I suspect that some are sports magazine style informal terms that we should avoid.
• From my familiarity with ice hockey I know that North America uses win-loss figures (i.e. "went 6–8 for the rest of the year") quite widely, but they will be baffling to a large section of readers.
• A very boring one. Endashes in scorelines are inconsistent.
• I dislike the division of sections by year. I don't know of any sports biography GA/FA that uses it. For example while motor racing divides seasons by calendar year none of the autosport biography FAs do things by season. I think in that respect some of them might be good models for structure, or perhaps some of the cricket ones.
• Once the by year sections start, everything gets monotonous. She did this in tournament A, then did this in tournament B. It doesn't make you want to read on. While it doesn't involve dates, it reads like proseline. Unremarkable tournaments need not be mentioned. Certainly scorelines are not required except when they are of particular note. In rewriting it, perhaps a useful approach would be to note down the most important events in each part of her career, and build it around them. It needs to be a narrative, not a catalogue.
• While you've said you are aware of the citation issues, a review of this article would be incomplete without mentioning them. Things need citing for all sorts of reasons. Some aren't controversial and should be simple, like results and world rankings. Others are original research concerns (i.e. "Hantuchová started 2003 solidly", "Serena Williams, who had entered the tournament with a lack of match practice and questions over her fitness"). Most pressing, however, are statements with WP:BLP issues such as those about anorexia.
• Excessive detail. Yes, there is far too much detail on comparitively minor things. The sections get increasingly verbose the more recent they are. Some of it could be eliminated very easily. Take the example Hantuchová spent the month of May and most of June recovering from a stress fracture in her right foot, which resulted in her withdrawal from the Tier I Internazionali BNL d'Italia in Rome,[16] the Tier III Istanbul Cup,[17] the French Open,[18] [19] and the Tier III Ordina Open in 's-Hertogenbosch,. Listing every tournament missed is serious overkill. Simply putting "several tournaments" instead of listing them all cuts that in half, and makes it far easier to read. Reading through lists of tournaments gets tiring quickly. The featured article criteria for comprehensiveness uses the phrase neglects no major facts or details. Not playing a tournament, or getting knocked out in the third round of a run of the mill tournament is not a major fact. The major facts get lost in the sea of minor ones. I felt that I didn't learn anything new after about the 2004 section, it all seemed like it was repeating itself.
• Daniela showed what she is capable of producing the week before Stuttgart - this isn't a fansite.
• That a modern day sportsperson appears in a sports videogame is entirely unsuprising and doesn't merit mention unless, say, a game is named after them like Madden NFL or Brian Lara Cricket.
• All those coloured tables could do with checking for colour blindness and other accessibility issues. It looks like the key is a copy and paste, as some of it isn't used and can be omitted.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)