Talk:Andy Murray/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Should have this completed within a couple of days. Given the size of the article I will have to make a full review, which would take a little longer. ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 20:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * The lead is slightly too long for an article this size and could be cut back a little. On top of this, the lead could definitely be better organised. For example, the second paragraph is only two sentences long and could be merged into another one. The first paragraph needs to talk about his basic information, who is etc, then the second about his history and the third or fourth about his tennis career (so it's chronological). The lead has to be restructured properly before this can meet the GA criteria
 * Also, the lead has too much WP:JARGON such as too many dates and long names of championships. This definitely needs to contain more of his personal life and a more prose orientated
 * Per WP:LEADCITE, citations are discouraged from the lead unless it's citing controversial information
 * I've cut down some of the information in the lead, will add some more personal details once I've expanded the personal life section. I've cut out most of the dates but I've left the names of the championships as I'm not really sure how those could be taken out without removing key information. I've not removed the citations yet but I will once I've checked that it's referenced elsewhere in the article.Username of a generic kind (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trimming the lead, it's looking a lot better now that jargon-y stuff has been removed. A little on his personal life in the opening paragraph would be great, if you can find anything ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 19:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Added another sentence to lead and removed uncontroversial citations.Username of a generic kind (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The Personal life section is a little disorganised. The second paragraph opens when he attended school "Murray later attended Dunblane High School" and later at the age of 15, and the third opens with "Murray was born with a bipartite patella" and his early childhood. It needs to be chronological.
 * Added some more information and placed things into chronological order.Username of a generic kind (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The latter half of the Personal Life section could be merged into one paragraph to create a better flow
 * Done.Username of a generic kind (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Should the Junior Slam results be here?
 * Yes, the top players all have their junior slam results listed in the junior career section.Username of a generic kind (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "In November, Murray won at Valencia, but bowed out in round two of the Paris Masters" - bowed out?
 * Bow out is an idiom which in the context means he lost. As far as I'm aware it's usage is common enough in the English language.Username of a generic kind (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please be sure that this article uses British English
 * Can't see any instances where this isn't the case but if you see anything I've missed then let me know.Username of a generic kind (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "In December 2014, Murray signed a 4-year partnership with athletic apparel company Under Armour" - could merge into the sentence above
 * Merged it with the paragraph on his apparel so that it's all in one place. Username of a generic kind (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Another thing I noticed, per WP:MOS (headings), I would avoid using special characters in them.
 * Do you just want the '&' replaced with 'and' in the career sub-headings or is there anything else? Username of a generic kind (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes please, I've never seen a '&' in a GA header before, so I've changed it myself. If anyone disagrees they are welcome to change it ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 18:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There was one more you missed which I've now done as well. Looks better, guess it was something I glossed over since I was so used to seeing it on the page. Username of a generic kind (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Scot however managed to up his level of play" - I hear this a lot on the news, it really makes me cringe! It's more encyclopaedic if all instances of "The Scot" were to be changed to Murray
 * Done Username of a generic kind (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "However, Mayer had to pull out due to injury, giving the Scot a walkover into round three" - again, maybe it's better if it were just "Murray", and by the way, what does walkover mean here?
 * If a player pulls out before a match is played then it is awarded as a walkover and doesn't count in the head-to-head between the players. Username of a generic kind (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Try splitting the Awards and honours section into two columns
 * Done Username of a generic kind (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The end of the first paragraph in Charitable work is unsourced (ie Rally for Relief)
 * Added citation Username of a generic kind (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The infobox image caption, "Murray at the Rogers Cup in 2010", am I right for assuming that he was holding the Rogers Cup? If so it would be great to reword that
 * Done Username of a generic kind (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

On hold
The major concern here is the lead section which contains too much jargon and could be better re-organised. Also some referencing problems and a couple of prose questions. However, much of the article's prose does look good other than the first half. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days but please let me know if you need more time. ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 16:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * - I'm surprised the review is this short. I have checked the lead and the first section, and everything does appear to be factually accurate and verifiable (I had no idea he was at school at the time of the Dunblane Massacre but it's all properly sourced not violating WP:BLP), so maybe this has had a lot of group work to be GA in all but name. One thing I would bring up is stability; there is a round in circles template on the talk page which would be an immediate discussion point, and 51K of prose is on the limits of what's acceptable for a BLP before it starts to become unfocused and possibly require a spinout article, which would be worth bringing up. There's a whole area of unsourced content regarding Wimbledon 2013, which could be cut down and definitely needs to be sourced before this can pass GA. Conversely, Ivan Lendl, who I've read has been a key figure in getting Murray to where is today, is glossed over a bit, and something on his training methods could be included. The Rally for Relief bit is unsourced. Anyway, those are just a few things I spotted, but I dare say there's more. I would say to do this article justice, you probably want something closer to Talk:Alabama (band)/GA1 that I knocked up this evening, although I'll admit that this article is in a much better shape to start with (though that one's not too bad either). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  21:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I realise that the review is looking a little on the short side here and that being said in some cases with my reviews, some are usually triple this length even if they are not in that bad shape. I think that the initial comments I left down carry more magnitude than leaving down a lot of bullet points - but I understand what you mean as I did check the latter half of the article, and must admit that the prose is much better than the first half. The serious concerns at the moment is the disorganisation and glaring MoS issues which could be addressed. With reviews, my primary focus are prose issues (a reader expects an article to be easy to read) and I then check the sources and verifiability later. I didn't find many issues with the sourcing, but with your concern I will leave some more initial comments on anything else I can find. Thanks, ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 22:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Respone from nominator
Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I hadn't been on Wikipedia for the past fortnight so have only seen it now. I'll get started on making the changes suggested but will probably need a bit more time. Hopefully should have it done within a week but will need to see how things go.Username of a generic kind (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for coming back to this, I was not aware that you was on a break but now you're back I think this GAN can be salvaged. I'll put this on hold for whenever is best for you ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 19:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

, thanks for your work. It appears that this review is half done, just wondering if you're able to continue? ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 16:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * yeah, I'm just working through it bit by bit. I'll let you know when I feel I've sorted everything. Username of a generic kind (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with all your initial comments and I've added citations for the Wimbledon 2013 which the other editor was concerned about. How do you think the article looks now? Username of a generic kind (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted
It truly is impressive when an article in its previous form gets transformed into a fully GA-ready article. Thanks to your efforts over the two weeks, this article has definitely improved, the prose now meets 1.a of the criteria (well written) and now all the references are up to a GA standard. It is also broad and well referenced, let alone there are no dead links. Well done on all the work, this now has its well-deserved GA status ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 17:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)