Talk:Henri Cochet/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 03:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A few things to clean up:

If the above are taken care of it should be good. I'll take another look when completed though. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Also in 1921 he won the military Championship of France." Either military should be capitalised, or championship should not, but something should be done about that.
 * Done
 * The second paragraph of the "Rise to Prominence section" only mentions Cochet by name once, near the end, and instead relies on "he" throughout. It would be appropriate to both use his name earlier in the paragraph, and switch it up a bit throughout. This seems to be a recurring issue throughout, so I'd give it a look through, especially as I changed one where the use of "he" implied a different person won a tournament.
 * Done
 * "Although after winning the Hard and Clay Court World series..." This sentence is really awkward to read and comprehend. I believe it is referring to Cochet's rise in the world ranking, but it could be made clearer.
 * Done, rephrased
 * It also has a note to "A" but there is no section for that.
 * Done, found the note in the history of editor Lajbi's sandbox. Was probably lost in migration from sandbox to article.
 * "The same day he was ranked third in the world..." There is no mention of what day that is, aside from being in October sometime. I'd either specify the date itself, or just drop that mention altogether.
 * Done, changed to week, in line with sources
 * "The final saw Jean Borotra forfeiting to Cochet." Any reason why Borotra forfeited?
 * Not done, the free snippet of the citation does not mention this and I have been unable to find another source.
 * Understandable, and too bad for that.
 * "French dominance" section has a note to "B" and again no section for those notes to appear.
 * Done, found the note in the history of editor Lajbi's sandbox. Was probably lost in migration from sandbox to article.
 * "Then he set out for an exhibition tour through central Europe in June, playing in Budapest, Belgrade and Vienna." Is there any details regarding this tour? It would be best to either fill it out, or add it to the end of the preceding paragraph.
 * Not done (yet), this was a minor tour event and as yet have found no additional details on it.
 * "These losses sealed the fate of the year-end rankings." This should have a citation.
 * Done, added reference
 * "Cochet turned professional for a guaranteed payment of £25.000..." Who guaranteed this fee?
 * Done, he signed with Tilden Tennis Tour, added reference
 * "...they were challenged by the Pilo Facondi and Perico Facondi Chile's leading professionals but subsequently lost to Henri." This is unclear: did the Chileans lose to Cochet, and if so why is his first name being used here?
 * Done, rephrased to clarify that they bost lost their match against Cochet but did manage to win at least one set.
 * "...highlighted by a Tilden-Cochet match finished by an eight to two overall head to head in favor of Tilden." Again unclear here: did Tilden win the majority of the matches between him and Cochet on these tours?
 * Done, rephrased to clarify that Tilden won eight of the ten matches against Cochet on this tour.
 * "In December 1941 he regained his amateur status granted by the French Tennis Association." Is there any reason why he regained amateur status?
 * Done, added explanation that this was in line with the sports policy of the Vichy regime during WWII which opposed professionalism. Added reference.
 * Inconsistency with capitalising "French Riviera" throughout.
 * Done, standardized on French Riviera, per article title
 * As the personal life section is so short, it may be better to combine it with the early life section at the top.
 * Not done, prefer to keep them separate for chronological reason. Added a sentence on his death to the section.
 * Just need a citation for his death now, that's missing.
 * Done, added reference.
 * There is also a major amount of duplicate linking to articles. This script can help point out where they are.
 * Done, installed the script and removed a significant number of duplinks within sections. In a long article like this a certain level of duplinking has my preference for the convenience of the reader, so I focused on duplinks within either sections or long paragraphs that approximately fill the screen.
 * Definitely a lot better now. I'd say there is still quite a few, but that's more personal preference and can agree with your argument for the way it is.
 * References: 64, 68, and 146 are dead. 15 is missing a title.
 * Fixed
 * This article could also do with some major copyediting, as the wording at times is quite rough. WP:COPYEDITORS may be able to help you there, as I am not that strong on that front. This won't be a factor in passing or not, but it would still be a good idea to do.
 * Done, agree with this assessment. I have done some copyediting to make certain sentences run smoother and at a minimum make them comply with the requirement 1a: "The meaning of each sentence or paragraph is clear and not confusing." Also caught a few spelling errors which were corrected. Update: have gone the through the entire article again yesterday and made several additional copyedits, mostly minor, to improve the flow of the prose.
 * Just need to add a citation for his death at the end there (see the above mention), and I think I can pass this. Kaiser matias (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * all the points listed above have now been addressed. In any case they have helped to further improve the article, so thanks for pointing them out. --Wolbo (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with the article now, so going to pass it. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for taking the time to review this article! --Wolbo (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, was a pleasure to read. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)