Talk:International Tennis Federation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 23:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article against the good article (GA) criteria. More to come as I get going. Saskoiler (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Criteria
 Good Article Status – Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

:
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ;
 * (c) ; and
 * (d).

:
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

. . :
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).



Review
 <li>:</li>

Examples of poor prose:
 * It was at this time that two compromises were reached: the title 'world championships' would be abolished and wording would be 'for ever in the English language'. - I don't know what this means.
 * In 1977 it dropped the word 'lawn' from its title, recognising that most tennis was no longer played on grass. - "It" is not obvious from the context here, and the rest of the sentence is sloppy.
 * ...and in time it is hoped that every tennis player worldwide will have a rating. - Hoped by whom?
 * Once players can ‘serve, rally and score’ they should have a rating to help them find players of a similar level to play with. - Like the previous example, this is not encyclopedic language at all.
 * Grand Slam events are actually held by ITF, not held by ATP/WTA, in which that many people may think that the ITF only held the smaller tournaments (ITF Men's/Women's Circuit, lower than any other levels). Grand Slam is also the highest level of the world tennis, even the ATP/WTA Year-end Championships. - Awkward and confusing.

Manual of Style:
 * Lead section - The first sentence of the lead is appropriate, but the remainder of the details probably belong in a "History" section. Conversely, the lead needs to summarize the key aspects of the article, and it presently is silent on grand slams, ITF circuits, ITF world champions, etc. For an example of a better one, see FIFA.
 * Layout - There are significant problems with layout caused by the imbalanced level of detail throughout.
 * ITN and IPIN probably need to be given different section names, since the acronyms are not helpful to the casual reader.
 * Grand slams are mentioned first inside the "Function" section, but then there's an entirely separate "Grand Slams" section.
 * There's a random "Records" subsection that doesn't belong at all.
 * There is an "ITF World Champions" section, which includes a "See also" to ITF World Champions (okay). But then the main "See also" section repeats the link to ITF World Champions (not okay).
 * Words to Watch - I did not specifically check these due to the large number of other issues with this criteria.
 * Fiction - n/a.
 * List Incorporation - There are sizable lists of ITF champions in tables (taking up about half of the entire article) that do not need to be in this article at all. They are already included, in full, in the subsidiary article. (Although, for readability I prefer the more compact format used in this article.)

<li>:</li>

<li>:</li>

Aspects of the topic which appear to be missing entirely include:
 * Administrative structure of the ITF (presidents; committees; voting/non-voting members; etc.)
 * Regional associations
 * ITF's role in Olympics/Paralympics (on par with its role in Grand slams, Davis Cup, Fed Cup - all of which are mentioned)
 * Coaching, development, officiating, rules
 * Drug testing, anti-doping
 * Beach tennis (Other divisions -- wheelchair, pro, seniors, juniors - are all mentioned, but this one is not, despite being under ITF jurisdiction)

The level of detail provided in the existing sections is not balanced. For example:
 * The history is sparse (okay), but it is biased toward the location of the headquarters and ignores many other items (not okay)
 * Regional associations are missing entirely, and national associations are only mentioned by linking out to them. Contrast that with the ITN, IPIN, and Controversy topics which collectively cover about half of the prose. (Controversy section... that's good to have. But ITN and IPIN seem like really trivial topics to include when there is so little other prose.)
 * Controversy section mentions two items from 2013, but article has no mention at all about the betting scandal (in the news around 2016 Australian Open) or anti-doping involvement (in the news right now)
 * In section "ITF World Champions", there is (1) no prose and (2) Sizable tables listing men's, women's, and junior ITF champions. Instead, summary prose should replace the tables, which are duplicated in the background article:ITF World Champions.

<li>.</li>

<li>.</li> <li>:</li>

</ol>

Discussion
I have a question, why all pass/fail blanks are replaced by "ask the 2nd opinion"? Could you give me more opinions of yourself about this article? 333-blue 00:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't started the review yet. I will gradually be adding comments and assessment, section by section. Saskoiler (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with the fail result. This article is nowhere near GA status yet (it currently has a 'start' quality rating). Not sure why it was nominated, unusually by an editor who has done virtually no work on the article.--Wolbo (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)