Talk:2020 US Open (tennis)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sportsfan77777 (talk · contribs) 03:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Finally, another tennis article! And it's a tournament article! We could use another one of those as a GA. Noting that we already have one modern tournament article as a GA: 2009 Sony Ericsson Open. That article does at least some things well (albeit some other parts are out-of-date). We also have 1877 Wimbledon Championships as an FA, but the format of that article is very different because of the times and I don't think it will add so much insight for this article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I imagine this one will be at least a little bit more difficult to get to GA status because of the extra things that need to be covered because of the pandemic. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Also noting that while tennis doesn't have many good tournament articles, other sports do: in particular, snooker (e.g. 2018 World Snooker Championship), cycling (e.g. 1989 Tour de France), and auto racing (e.g. 2006 Bank of America 500). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead

 * First paragraph should go through the "run by ITF, part of 2020 ATP Tour and 2020 WTA Tour" stuff (The 2009 Sony Ericsson Open article does this, for instance), and also need to write out the non-abbreviated ITF somewhere. (Took this out of the "Tournament" section and moved it to the lead, with a few tweaks - I didn't want to be repetitive and it seemed slightly out of place where it was.) Maybe for ATP and WTA too.
 * Mention "professional" somewhere.
 * The lead should talk about the entire tournament rather than just last year's champions and this year's champions.
 * Some of the key topics of this tournament that I'd suggest adding are
 * (1) A lot of top-ranked players missing the tournament in general, such as Nadal, Barty, Halep (due to the pandemic) and Federer (due to injury); and Andreescu (due to one or both of these reasons)
 * (2) There was no qualifying draw.
 * (3) Djokovic's incident
 * (4) Osaka's masks
 * (5) Thiem becoming the first new Grand Slam men's singles champion since 2014
 * There is certainly some discretion about what to include.


 * Something in general to keep in mind is that virtually everything in the lead should be repeated in the body of the article. Even now, that's not the case. (Andreescu is not mentioned again.)

New comments:
 * Osaka wore similar masks for each of her other six matches, each with a different name of a Black American killed as a result of police brutality. <<<=== Minor note: The majority (I think 5 of 7) were Black Americans killed as a result of police brutality, but not all of them.
 * Fixed – I replaced with "...African-American who died as a result of unjust violence from police or other citizens in the United States...", if "unjust" is a NPOV violation, I can remove that. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Tournament

 * took place at BJK Tennis Center <<< where it has been held since when?
 * Some of this section has not been properly updated.
 * For example: "The tournament will be held on 17 Laykold[1] hard courts." (tense)
 * Also: "The tournament consisted only of the men's and women's singles and doubles draws" <<<=== there were wheelchair draws too
 * Some of the grammar at the end of the second paragraph is not so good.
 * "qualifying matches, mixed doubles and junior matches would not be played." <<<=== I think "there were none of these draws" is more representative than "these draws were not played" (the latter implies something more like this).
 * Western & Southern Open ===>>> Cincinnati Open (changed to "Cincinnati Masters" instead as that was the name given in the lead of 2020 Western & Southern Open)
 * Why did them using the Grandstand for the Cincinnati Open mean they couldn't also use it for this tournament (given that they were different weeks)?

COVID-19 pandemic

 * The things in parentheses don't need to be in parentheses.
 * I agree with mentioning that there were draw changes in both this section and the preceding section; however, as is, it's a bit repetitive. One of the sections (probably the first) should be more detailed than the other.
 * Having a paragraph to go through the key players who missed tournament because of the pandemic might go here as the second paragraph.
 * The last two paragraphs seem like they are about the same thing and should just be one paragraph.
 * women's doubles team of Timea Babos and Kristina Mladenovic <<<=== clarify these were the top seeds
 * Maybe this section should be a sub-section of the Tournament section? (but that's discretional)

Players

 * This section probably requires the most improvement.
 * The first major point is that it should also have prose. (see 2009 Sony Ericsson Open for a basic example)
 * Some things you might want to think about are:
 * (1) How are the players in the tournament determined? (In particular, what were the direct acceptance cutoffs in the singles draws?)
 * (2) For this tournament in particular (because of all of the withdrawals), who were the top seeds?
 * (3) Who were the favorites? (at least for singles, maybe doubles too)
 * (4) Who were the former winners? (and for the men's singles, also former finalists, since there were so few former winners)
 * (5) Was there anything worth noting about how the rankings could change?
 * (6) Summarize the wild cards, PRs, and players who weren't initial direct acceptances. (Murray and Clijsters are worth noting, for instance. This overlaps with the former winners point.)
 * (7) Normally I'd summarize the withdrawals here, but in this case, most of them might fit better in the pandemic section above. Federer, and maybe a few others, still probably fit in here. (Added major withdrawals)


 * The second major point is that I'd recommend replacing the lists of singles players with the lists of singles seeds (e.g. that you can find in 2019 US Open). We don't need to list all of the players, and this list in particular is not so useful because it is not ordered by seed or alphabetically. (I don't like the idea of ordering by place in the draw without the draw itself. It just looks random.) By contrast, the lists of seeds are ordered by seed (and you can also sort them by pre-tournament ranking and post-tournament ranking points). It also contains more useful information in that it also shows who all the best players lost to, and the changes in the points and rankings (something that is not discussed enough as is; see the comments on the points section below).
 * I really have no opinion one way or the other, and of course my main goal is to help out our readers as much as possible, but I am hesitant to mess with these tables at all due to the amount of debate that seems to spark whenever someone does so. See Talk:2020 US Open (tennis), Talk:2021 Australian Open, etc. My point of view in the latter was more based around getting the article in good enough shape to be posted to ITN, though in hindsight I would say that the table you suggest (which was removed from that page and this one) is probably the more helpful one. I'd appreciate some advice as to what path to take here - perhaps replace the existing table with the one you suggest, though have it auto-collapsed? PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From reading those discussions, my impression is that many of the complaints were about removing the two singles seeds charts. I don't think the complaints at ITN were about any individual charts either, but rather there being too many charts in general (which I agree with). Overall, I'd stick to the same recommendation to replace the singles player lists with the singles seed charts. I don't see the need to have them auto-collapsed, but I'm more indifferent on that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done – singles seeds tables have been added. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

New comments:
 * Because COVID-19 precautions necessitated the cancellation of the qualification matches, the ATP and WTA Rankings were used to determine entry into the tournament; <<<=== This isn't quite right. The difference is they determined all of the entries instead of just most of them.
 * I altered the wording to take this into account. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The rest is fine.

Events

 * How you refer to seeds is not consistent. Sometimes they are labelled as "-seed", other times as "No. #". I generally prefer saving "No. #" for ranking rather than seed, as it's commonly used in expressions like "world No. 1".

Men's singles

 * In general, I might target making this three paragraphs rather than two.
 * holding the top seeding ===>>> holding the top seed
 * Tournament rules necessitated that Djokovic default the match <<<=== I think "Djokovic was defaulted", not "Djokovic defaulted". I'm not sure it was required either? I think the umpire (or another official?) has to make the decision.
 * while Busta <<<=== It's "Carreño Busta"
 * Seems like the first part of the second men's singles paragraph isn't cited?
 * Mention Zverev's two-set comeback was his first.
 * came down to the wire <<<=== too informal
 * 7–6 (6) <<<=== use the superscript format.
 * Some of the points on the draw page are worth adding. I would recommend: (and you may need to integrate it into the paragraphs rather than just putting it at the end)
 * (1) Djokovic's disqualification from the tournament ensured there would be a guaranteed first-time Grand Slam finalist in the top half of the draw.
 * (2) His disqualification also meant this would be the first Grand Slam tournament since the 2004 French Open to not feature either Djokovic, Federer or Nadal in the semifinals
 * Split Djokovic's DQ into a middle paragraph and added these in that paragraph. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Women's singles

 * In general, I might target making this three paragraphs rather than two.
 * Mertens's seed is wrong
 * "Round of 16" shouldn't be capitalized
 * as the top two players headed into the finals <<<=== quarterfinals
 * the other two semifinals saw No. 28 Jennifer Brady defeat No. 23 Yulia Putintseva <<<=== quarterfinals
 * she proved that not to matter <<<=== too informal
 * woke up from her self-described bad attitude <<<=== "self-described bad attitude" is okay in quotes, but "woke up" seems a bit too informal even in quotes
 * her third Grand Slam (add "singles title")
 * Some of the points on the draw page are worth adding. I would recommend: (and you may need to integrate it into the paragraphs rather than just putting it at the end)
 * (1) With her first round win over Kristie Ahn, Serena Williams surpassed Chris Evert for the most match wins (102) in US Open history.
 * (2) 29 of the 32 seeded women progressed to the second round; the most since the US Open changed from 16 seeds to 32 seeds in 2001.
 * (3a) Either 3a or 3b: With Williams, Azarenka and Tsvetana Pironkova all winning their fourth round matches, it marked the first time in Grand Slam history that 3 mothers had reached the quarterfinals.
 * (3b) Either 3a or 3b: The semifinal between Williams and Azarenka was the first semifinal between 2 mothers in Grand Slam history. (went with 3b)


 * Add a photo of the winner.

Doubles

 * I'll hold off on commenting on these until the two singles sections are done, or close.

Wheelchair

 * I'll hold off on commenting on these until the two singles sections are done, or close.

Points and money

 * In general, this section should discuss the general trends of the points and prize money. Some of this section already does that, but a lot of it doesn't.
 * "All men's and women's doubles players that made it past the first round received half the points of their singles counterparts." <<<=== Something like this is good in that it summarizes the points distribution in general
 * "women's singles players got 240, 130, 70, and 10 for an exit in the first four rounds" <<<=== Something like this does not seem necessary. You don't need to transcribe exactly what's written in the chart. That's the point of the chart.
 * Might as well include the wheelchair point and money charts?
 * You can't start a sentence with a number.
 * Another major point is that this section doesn't explain enough of the points system (i.e. the 52-week system). This is more complicated than usual because of how the points system was changed. (Also, what are these points for? The fact that the points determine the rankings should be mentioned.)
 * Did my best to explain the difference this year versus other years. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For the prize money, I'd recommend talking more about the reductions at different levels (and again, not just transcribing the chart).
 * Talked a bit about that as well as the reductions compared to last year and the reasons for that. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Broadcast / Viewership
You need to add a broadcast or viewership section, something like that.

Overall

 * I guess the players's section is the biggest comment.
 * The lead is a big comment as well.
 * The points/prize money section is also a big comment, but that's probably more straightforward to address than the others.
 * Some of the links are missing access dates, and how certain websites are referred to isn't always consistent (probably should leave out "www.").
 * You could also add dates to all of the links if you want.
 * Dates (and authors) added when available. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Overall, it's in okay shape, but certainly on track. It's especially good that it has prose to go through the events when most articles don't have that at all. The types of sources used are mostly good, aside from some formatting issues. I'll also note that you can take what time you need to address these points. Placing on hold. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have addressed many of the smaller things, like copyediting, sourcing, and some formatting changes. I'll most likely get into the more involved stuff in the next few days. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 05:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I believe I've addressed all concerns above - if you have comments about the doubles/wheelchair sections or about any of my recent changes, I'd appreciate if you could let me know. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I tweaked a few more things related to the pandemic changes in the entrants and points. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Other than that, everything important looks covered. Passing! Good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks so much for the review and for your patience! PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 07:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)