Wikipedia:Peer review/Milos Raonic/archive1

Milos Raonic

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, so much improvement have been done since its subject has become more and more notable. Several dispute issues has been settled regarding his nationality, section lengths (they were trimmed down to be more comprehensive), statistics (it was moved to a separate page). All the photos were reviewed, the links are in my opinion appropriate. I want to make sure that every effort made was according to the guidelines and some tips concerning what is needed to be done to get it ready for good article nomination. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 21:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I began a fairly close line-by-line review until I noticed that much of the article lacks citations to reliable sources and therefore does not meet WP:V. This is a serious problem that will prevent promotion to GA and should be addressed before worrying much about other issues. If other editors added lots of unsourced claims, it may be hard to track down their sources, and thus the content may change substantially by deletion. Also, I doubt that so much detail is useful. Here's an example from the 2010 subsection: "He had more chances to break point but experience and poise won out for the veteran as Nadal converted both of his only two break points and Raonic, none of his five." How much detail about specific matches should be included in articles about sports? It is a judgment call, and there is no universal rule, but I think that most readers would find the highlights of Raonic's career interesting, the personal information interesting, but would probably glaze over while reading blow-by-blow descriptions of individual games. On the bright side, culling unnecessary detail from the article should simplify the task of finding reliable sources for the remaining information.

No dead links, no dabs. This is good.

Images and image licenses look find. However, File:Raonic2011AO2.png on my computer screen displaces the "2011 subhead". I would suggest moving it down several lines to keep it away from the subhead.

Lead

I would spell out as well as abbreviate Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) in the lead. Ditto for International Tennis Federation (ITF).

"He is currently ranked... " - Generally, instead of using words like "currently", "now", and "today", which change meaning as time passes, it's better to use a more specific word or phrase such as "as of 2011".

Anything like "No. 37" that would look odd if separated on computer screens by line-break should be nailed together with a no-break code. I fixed the first instance, in the lead, so you can see what it looks like in edit mode. WP:NBSP explains how this works. "Group 4", "Croatia F1", "No. 11" are other examples of combinations that need nbsps.

Junior tennis career

The entire section lacks any citations to reliable sources, yet the information is filled with statistics and is not common knowledge. Where does the information come from? Generally, except perhaps for the lead, any sets of statistics, any unusual claims, any direct quotations, and every paragraph needs a citation to a reliable source. Seeing much more of the same in lower sections, I will stop at this point.

Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Finetooth, Lajbi. Good article coming along nicely but nowhere near GA right now. Mainly because of the lack of sources. A dilligent review would quick fail this if you went to GA right now. Trust me I'm revewing a few GA's and gaining experience in how to review, and if I saw this I would quick fail it just like I did to the Grand National. KnowIG (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]