Talk:Petra Kvitová/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 03:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

There is an orange level tag on this article. Please resolve this issue. If that is done I will look at reviewing against the criteria. Currently it is a candidate for an immediate fail. AIRcorn (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've done a few of these as an interested observer, but I suspect a lot of the ones specific to Czechia will need someone who speaks the language to find sources. Courcelles (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Silaslej is around so hopefully they are still interested. AIRcorn (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a passerby but I fixed some bad html code, replaced a Czech source with an English source, and corrected some hyphens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Some improvements have been made. Can ping me when you are ready for the full review. AIRcorn (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

 * Early Life
 * Is there a reason some of cites are in the middle of sentences?
 * Do we need the regions. Makes a small Sea of Blue.
 * Can't access the Wall Street Journal article. Can you confirm that she admired Martina Navratilova and the coaching by David Kotyza. the last seems unlikely given the date in the wikipedia article is later than the date the Wall Street Journal was published.


 * Career (2006–2010: Career beginnings, first title and ascendancy)
 * Lot of missing cites. Things like upsetting someone, starting impressively, making debuts and reaching something for the first time definitely need cites. It could be argued that the results need something backing them up too.
 * Kvitová first attempted to qualify for her first WTA tournament at the 2007 ECM Prague Open, but she lost in the second round of qualifying to Ekaterina Ivanova Is the first first needed?
 * I know sports articles go like this, but is there a better way to go than detailing every tournament result. It gets a bit of a chore to read. It seems to be written this way right throughout the career section. The career section is over 75% of the article so I feel this is a Focus issue. There are some main articles, but I think it would be beneficial to split out the career as a whole and so maybe this can be a bit more of a summary. This article should focus on notable games, we don't need details of her progression through every tournament. I would also like to see some more commentary on her games aside from the result. Did anyone important comment on her performances, did anything unusual happen, what were her thoughts. At the moment it feels like most of this could fit in a table (always an option).

I won't review anymore now as I feel this fails the focus criteria and if that is fixed much of this will end up being rewritten. I won't fail it straight away as I would like to give a chance for others to respond. I also probably won't keep it open if we are happy that this is an issue as I believe the overhaul could take a long time and it may be better to have this out of the queue while that happens. Don't feel bad, it is not a terrible issue and relatively easy, if not a little time consuming, to fix. My first article I nominated for GA had much the same problems and trimming back the detail improved it remarkably. AIRcorn (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Failing this as I feel it fails the focus criteria. AIRcorn (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)