Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of French Open Men's Singles champions/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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 16:29, 23 November 2009.

List of French Open Men's Singles champions

 * Nominator(s):  BLUE DOG TN 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is similar to the List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions and List of US Open Men's Singles champions, and I feel it is worthy of this honor and distinction.  BLUE DOG TN 20:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have looked over everything in the toolbox and all looks okay right now, which I fixed the intro to match the other two with the exception of describing this slam in its unique ways. BLUE DOG TN 02:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I took and corrected some stuff in the introduction which makes the intro superb. Please, come in and give your opinion editors! BLUE DOG TN 03:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Images: Licensing seems fine and alt text is present.  Good raise  14:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources: No concerns about the sources used.  Good raise  18:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving this nomination my weak support on the condition that WFCforLife's concern about the scores is addressed.  Good raise  02:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Feel free to answer after each bullet point or at the end, whichever you find easier.


 * Notes should appear in alphanumeric order. For example (and this is not an exhaustive list), the first [h] should not appear earlier in the list than the first [c].
 * Fixed BLUE DOG TN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two two-line paragraphs, at least one of which could easily be merged into a larger paragraph.
 * Fixed Both BLUE DOG TN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably I've missed this, but what is sourcing the scorelines?
 * Got them Sourced! BLUE DOG TN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a source which indicates that records of the missing scorelines do not exist? It seems somewhat strange that records exist for as early as 1891, yet were not kept for as late as 1913. If the records were destroyed, I would assume that there is a source for this.
 * Yes BLUE DOG TN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know that much about tennis, but consider changing "active player" to something which cannot possibly become outdated, such as "competed in the 2009 season" (which could obviously be updated to "...2010 season" in future). Seems picky, but I've seen at least three recent sports FLCs where this has come up.
 * I like and changed it to "Competed in 2009" BLUE DOG TN 10:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

At a glance I have some grammatical concerns, but some of these are being covered by other reviewers so I'll concentrate on these areas for the time being. WFCforLife (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, Go and Fix it because I cannot spot them! BLUE DOG TN 10:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The grammar seems to have been dealt with by Dabomb and Bluedog, but I'm afraid I can't support yet.
 * Then, fix it if it is not up to your standard or put your misgivings here, and I will address them! I dislike when people say grammar grammar and grammar for their oppose if they do not fix it or point out the exact things they disagree with. BLUE DOG TN 19:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I originally raised the point that it seems unusual that earlier scores were there while later ones weren't. The response was to remove the earlier scores, which was the worst possible change, and should be reversed. I was simply querying why this was the case. If the other scores don't exist, they don't exist. I simply want a satisfactory explanation, and if possible a source which seems to support this. The fact that they're not listed is an indication, but I've seen nothing which suggests that they cannot be found.
 * They cannont be found because the scores on the sources just have 1925 onward. I got two sources to prove that fact. BLUE DOG TN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ref 5 does not source the scorelines, it sources the winners.
 * I put 10 and 11 their, too! This will let it be sourced. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My browser security does not allow me to view source 10. Could another reviewer confirm what is in this source, (crucially, does it make any suggestion that the other scores have been lost?) and could Bluedog explain why it is a reliable source?
 * The grandslamhistory one is a reliable one and the Hick of sports is their to back it up! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for dragging this on, but if this results in more scores being obtained, and/or a source explaning the gaps being uncovered, then it will have been worth the effort. WFCforLife (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They cannot be obtained! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why were they there before? Surely they weren't just made up. I do accept that some scores may be missing, and that this can be a featured list without them. However, nothing has been done to convince me that the list is as complete as possible, and if anything I'm less certain now than I was when I did my initial review. I therefore have no choice but to oppose. WFCforLife (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't have the score is not reason this cannot be featured, which is because it was not recorded, which is because pre-1925 it was not considered a slam. Go look at the men's grand slam page. BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 21:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, note C needs rewording, as we do have some results from the pre-slam era. The point that I am now making for a third time is that nothing reliable has suggested that the other results don't exist or have been destroyed. I'm not willing to deactivate my internet security to access ref 10, but unless it specifically addresses this point then I have to remain opposed, (and even if it does, I would suggest replacing a source which is blocked by one of the biggest internet security providers). I would be very happy to support if this were addressed, but I feel this important enough to oppose.


 * If you feel my judgement is wrong, perhaps we could draw attention to this discussion on the FLC talk page? It might help. WFCforLife (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been a follower of tennis majors for the last 10 years, including building my own database of tennis results. To comment on this, indeed, for the pre-slam era, we do have the list of winners but the scores could not be obtained. That is, I'm referring to the official website. In as much as the Wikipedia policy is to not use a primary source as a citation, I don't think this will really matter for such facts as the who's and the what's (or concrete facts) of the subject. So if the official website can't really divulge these info on scoring, then likely no other websites could, since it is the father of all French Open results website. That is unless one probably undertakes personal research to search for facts in newspaper clippings or something. But wikipedia doesn't allow original research (is this applicable here?). In retrospect, I also had a hard time trying to find the scores of tie breaks (lingering death system) up to the mid-1980s in the majors and year-end championships. If the scores for these "recent" matches could not be found, what more for those that took place in the 1920s? Joey80 (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The missing scores aren't a big deal per se. It just strikes me as very surprising that we have some scores from that era yet not others. Is there really no story behind the missing scores whatsoever? If there isn't there isn't, (and if there isn't we shouldn't fail this FLC as a result), but I find it difficult to believe that it's never been talked about. WFCforLife (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot do any better on this article than has been done on this list, so if you find grammar problems it is not my problem rather yours since you've got the problem with it. So, I would advise you WFCforLife and Goodraise to fix them, which I will have no problem with that at all, and if you need my help I am here to help on matters of technical questions.  By the way, the scores cannot and could not be obtained for some years because it was the French National reserved for French Club Amateur Tennis players only, which means some records did not get recorded for historical fact. Most places online only have post-1925 brackets and scoring, which this is the case here as well. Have a nice day... BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for goodraise, but I have already expressed that I'm happy with the work yourself and DaBomb have done on the grammar. I remain opposed for reasons I have now expressed three times. It'd be worth seeing if goodraise is willing to support, but as far as I'm concerned I'm finished here unless something substantial is provided (and if it is you'll need to notify me as I'm no longer watching this page). I wish you the very best of luck, and I appreciate Joey's input, but nothing has been provided which changes my oppose. It's up to the directors to interpret this discussion, and I respect whatever decision is made.


 * Regardless, I strongly urge the removal of the Hick of Sports reference. Firstly a reliable source doesn't need "backing up", and secondly a site which makes "unauthorised changes to a user's computer" should not be linked to from an example of wikipedia's best work. WFCforLife (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I took out Hick of Sports Ref per your suggestion! BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 23:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked The Rambling Man to close this, and per his decision it will be promoted or declined. Thanks for commenting on this right now! I have done this the best I could have right now with the information on the scores and the grammer is the best that I can do this for the English language. I will be moving onto the Australian Open one to get it up to par. Thanks... BLUE <sub style="color:#FF0000;">DOG TN 04:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.