Wikipedia:Peer review/List of ATP number 1 ranked players/archive1

List of ATP number 1 ranked players

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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to try and give the Tennis WikiProject its first featured article. I have added references to the page and added a little bit more prose. Please can comments be made on the number and quality of references and the scope of information.

Thanks, 03 md 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Check WP:MOSFLAG for the use of those flags without country names.
- I have changed the first instance of the icon to the country initials and flag e.g. GBR while leaving repetitions of nationality as flagicons, per MOS. 03 md 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, repetition is less of an issue in sortable table.—Chris! _ct 04:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check WP:MOS for placement of references. No spaces between them and no between a ref and punctuation.
Done
Find an image for the lead.
- Added an image of Pete Sampras to lead 03 md 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the paragraphs in the lead and then bulk them out.
- Done 92.0.249.49 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1 vs. No. 1 vs. number 1 - be consistent.
- Changed all cases of no. 1 to Number 1 03 md 18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Things in just bold should be avoided for accessibility reasons. Colours and symbols work well here.
Done 03 md 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, colour on its own is not enough. Symbols too.
Done - I hope that is OK 03 md 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Year-end section is odd looking. Not tabulated, and repeats not in parentheses.
- Tabulated the year-end section and numbers now in parentheses 92.0.249.49 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. of years ended at #1 is odd too. A small infobox on the side of the Year-end section.
- Should that be tabulated? I personally feel it works well as an infobox alongside the tablulated year-end section 92.0.249.49 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Players who were ranked World No. 1 without having won a Grand Slam tournament" section doesn't need a table (or even its own section) - it could be subsumed into the lead.
- Subsumed into lead 03 md 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other records is borderline list of trivia. Can we make this part of the lead?
- Made into part of lead - probably enough info in lead now 03 md 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid contractions per WP:MOS e.g. "haven't"
- Removed contractions 92.0.249.49 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need "Tennis" in the See also section? Really focus that section into pertinent articles. I wouldn't expect more than two See also's here.
- Done 03 md 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty to do, but a good foundation for WP:TENNIS' first FL. Let me know if I can help further. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An observation or two from Maedin (talk · contribs)

Why are there figures in parentheses after only some player names?
- Figures in parentheses now added for all players
After the first table, you have tiny comments in italics. Before the second table, you have tiny comments that aren't italicised. Can we choose just one format, please?
Italicised both
I can't see the significance of the Rafael Nadal information in the lead? 24th? 15th? Why is this mentioned? I assume that, as the most recent addition, it could give some indication of "turnover" or "activity" in the list overall, but I don't think the average reader would gain much from it. It would be more beneficial, perhaps, if it were compared to another dataset of some description—say, female WTA rankings, or another association's No. 1 rankings.
I will leave this for now but will bear it in mind and may change it
In making these comments, I have just finally realised that the numbers in parentheses is the actual number of unqiue players on the list. I really think that can be integrated into the table in a more professional way. I think it's far too unclear (then again, I could just be an idiot).
Done
Seeing as there are tables dedicated to "year-end" statistics, it might be worth mentioning the significance of this. It would mean nothing to the average reader.
Done
In one section heading, you mention "players" and in another, you mention "men". Working logically, player is more specific than men, and should probably be used for preference.
Changed
In the Weeks at number 1 section, it's very easy to miss the difference in the last column . . . total and consecutive. Could these have a clearer heading/explanation/introduction? Plus, it seems rather arbitrary to have two tables of different sizes side by side, especially without introduction.
Added intro and made it clear the purpose of the tables
Tables are used throughout, except for the Complete calendar year-number ones section. Couldn't this be tabled?
- Done

I've never done a peer review before, and I'm rather dim, so I apologise if my comments are just wasting your time! I hope at least a thing or two was useful, though, :-) Maedin\^talk 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments which I have now addressed.

Quick comment from rst20xx - would it be worth adding a column to the first table to say the number of the err reign (?) that it is? So for example Borg had 6 reigns because he was number 1 for 6 non-consecutive periods and hence the column should indicate numbers 1 to 6. Simply provides another bit of information - rst20xx (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]