Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1929 in tennis/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014.

1929 in tennis

 * Nominator(s):  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because these types of pre-professinal tennis era articles better qualify for a list format. They are basically compiled of vast series of reliable sources. We've started these lists a couple of years ago and it's the third edition of them and I feel it has been forged into a readable, well-formatted structure by now.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments Table
 * The lead does not seem to have been copy edited.
 * "The year 1929 in tennis was a complex mixture" I would strike 'complex' as superfluous.
 * "The professionals were mostly coaches who coached for a living, while amateur rules prohibited tennis players to benefit financially from playing." This is wordy and clumsy. Perhaps "Most professionals were coaches, and amateurs were prohibited from benefiting financially from playing."
 * "The amateur events were almost all all-comers' event and the majority included a mixed title contest." Repetition of all - the first could be replaced by always. I do not understand "a mixed title contest". Mixed doubles? But then why mention that and not men's and womens' doubles?
 * I felt that this explanation is needed because even in the Wikiproject:Tennis people seemed to be confused that there are no separate Men's tour (like ATP World Tour) and women's tour (like WTA Tour). At the time a championship had both gender singles, doubles and mixed doubles, which could be surprising to casual readers as it only happens in Grand Slam tournaments nowdays (because those four are the only tournaments where men and women compete together). In 1929 it was a usual thing but I want it to be noted in the lede.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this needs spelling out as I did not understand it - e.g. "There were no separate men's and women's tours and almost all amateur events had men's, women's and mixed doubles contests." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The women's most successful players in the European international championships were Esna Boyd of Australia and two players from the United States Elizabeth Ryan who was thuspunished by the United States Lawn Tennis Association for her commitment to European events compared to those in the U.S. and Helen Wills Moody who won the two most prestigious tournaments in Europe," This has 3 lines without even a comma and two words run together - thuspunished. Needs tidying and I would leave out 'thus'
 * "The Four Musketeers" - this links to a disambig. Needs correcting and I would add who they are in this article.
 * "Also the Australian Championships was won by a British player, Colin Gregory." The word 'Also' is ungrammatical and unnecessary.
 * "the Davis Cup (called the International Lawn Tennis Challenge)" - perhaps "officially called"
 * "the Mitre Cup (South American version of the Davis Cup)" I am not sure any edit is needed but it sounds as if politics was involved. Chile played in the Europe zone of the Davis Cup and presumably the other South American countries went off and had their own cup?
 * Wightman and Davis Cups. 'edition' is an odd word here - year or held for xth time?
 * International Tennis Federation should be linked.
 * "The tournament was split into the American and European zones. The winner of each sub-zone played in an Inter-Zonal Final." I do not understand this. If zones were split into sub-zones then this should be explained.
 * "The United States defeated Cuba in the America Zone, but would then lose to France in the Challenge Round," Why give the winner of the American zone but not the European. Perhaps something like "The United States won the American zone, but lost to the winner of the Europe zone, France in the final, called the Challenge Round."
 * N/A seems to be used inconsistently, sometimes no competition, sometimes opponent retired. Perhaps sometimes previous year's winner only played in final and had not entered, or had that rule been abolished by that time? I think it would be better to explain in each case, not put N/A.
 * I used N/A for the "no information" (currently). That's its sole purpose. If there was e.g. no women's contest I greyed the whole coloumn out. Retired in the final is abbreviated "ret." as explained in the Key section. No competition is always phrased like "prizes shared" or "remained unfinished due to [rain] " or simply "suspended" depending on what sort of source is available to verify it. As for your last question no Challenge round was in effect at the time except for the Davis Cup (which is obviously called the Challenge round, which is in the lede) but do I have to explain the rules of tennis within a list article? I mean I already listed the change of rules that happened exactly in 1929 but do I have to present tennis to readers? Or mention that challenge round was abolished sometime before WWI?  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that N/A is ambiguous. I took it to mean Not applicable. I think 'Not known' would be better. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Mixed doubles Cannes January shown as suspended. The source says due to bad light. If not resumed it should be shown as abandoned.
 * February Bill Tilden. "His US number one ranking was also due to be regiven to him." I don't think regiven is a word. Why not restored?
 * David Cup May 2nd round. The winners and losers do not line up on my screen.
 * June. "The British ladies' team beat the French rivals without losing a match." should be their French rivals or leave out the word 'rivals'.
 * I do not like the Footnotes and Works cited in boxes so that you cannot see them all at the same time but that is personal preference.
 * A first rate list but text needs tightening. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and the in-depth details. I will work on it and update this page accordingly.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  13:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * – SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.