Wikipedia:Peer review/List of ATP number 1 ranked players/archive2

List of ATP number 1 ranked players

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has had one failed FLC with little feedback so I am hoping to nominate it again. Just need to get some feedback from the community.

Thanks, 03 md 19:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afro's Comments

Bold is used for emphasis this is discouraged per MOS:BOLD.
The only table which sorts correctly is in "Year-end number 1".
The Doubles number one section seems totally inconsistent and under emphasized, in regards to coverage of the article it seems to be List of ATP number 1 ranked singles players.
The sourcing seems to be heavily primary.
MOS:TEXT also discourages the use of the small html tags.

Afro (Talk) 06:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments:-

Prose issues

Some unnecessarily cumbersome phrasing, e.g.:-
- "the immediate cumulative 52 weeks" - why not "the past 52 weeks"?
  - Done.
- "their counting tournament count" → "their counting tournament total"
  - Done
- "Since the ATP began a ranking system for the first time in 1973..." This is unnecessarily repetition of information we've only just been told. Either: "since ranking began in 1973..." or "Since 1973..."
  - Done
"Pete Sampras holds the records of six year-end number 1, and for most weeks (286) as the top ranked player..." The nature of Sampras's first record is not clear from this. Does it mean: "Pete Sampras the record for the most year-end number 1s (six), and for most weeks..." etc?
You can avoid repetition later in this sentence by saying: "... while Roger Federer has the most consecutive weeks..."
- - Done
"Two players have reached the number 1 ranking without having won a Grand Slam tournament." For clarity, you should insert "previously" after "having" (in view of Lendl's later success)
- - Done

Useful information not provided

How often are the rankings recalculated? After each week? After each tournament?
- - Done - I hope that's clear enough.
Does "year-end" refer to the end of each calendar year? Why is there a particular significance in being a year-end No. 1? (why, for example, is Federer's 6 year-end No. 1s specially noted?
- - Done
You explain in general terms how rankings are calculated, but there is a need to be more specific. Prsumably more points are awarded for performances in some tournamanents than in others, with Grand Slams the most pointworthy? Do you have details of this? Do points keep their full value for the whole 52 weeks and then fall off the player's record, or do they slowly depreciate in value, as with golf's PGA rankings?

Tables

Thes look very impressive. I am not able to chech the accuracy of the information, but I am assuming this has been checked and double-checked. A few minor issue:-

If you are going to use bolded figures, this must be for a clearly-explained purpose. What, exactly, do the bolded values in the right-hand column of the first table signify? If it is each player's final total of No. 1 weeks, what about players who are still playing (Federer, Nadal etc)?
Tiresome though it is to do, numerics always look best in columns when they are centered
You need a specific definition of "active player"

Doubles

There is nothing in the lead that refers to doubles, so this table came as a surprise. You need to add information in the lead relative to this table – if you propose to keep it. My own recommendation would be to make it the subject of a separate list; there is enough information here without this extra table.
I am having some difficulty understanding this doubles table. What are the numbers in parentheses after the players' names? Also, I thought that doubles pairs would be ranked, rather than individual players, yet until around 2003 we have single players. More explanation needed.

I appreciate that the lists have been prepared with considerable effort, but believe that some further work is necessary, particularly to the accompanying text, if this is to succeed next time at FLC. Please use my talkpage if you need to discuss any points from this review, or if you want me to look again. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]