Wikipedia:Peer review/Svetlana Kuznetsova/archive1

Svetlana Kuznetsova
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what else could be done to promote this article to GA-status. Thanks-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 10:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments from Jappalang

My interpretation of the GA requirements is that the article broadly covers the subject (less than comprehensive, more than a one-sided portrayal), clearly written (few or no ambiguous statements, or confusing/conflicting information), mostly compliant with the MoS, and abides the central policies of citing to verifiable reliable sources and respect for the goal of "free" content.

That said, the article so far is failing on the broad coverage front. 99% of the article is dealing with sports statistics; little is revealed about what kind of a person Kuznetsova is.

I find it pointless and undue to cover in so much detail (with scores) every year of her playing career (if this was done for Martina Hingis or Martina Navratilova, I fear what sort of article we would be getting). As far as I understand, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means having to summarize items into something manageable for the readers, not deluging them with information that would appeal only to fans of Kuznetsova's playing career. A more pertinent shape of a playing career section would be to gather data on the significant matches, events that shaped her career, etc., and not set up as a list of matches.

A notable sports figure should have coverage in newspapers about her life in some aspects and her status in the sports world; these articles offer a critical outlook of Kuznetsova's years in the tennis arena (performance and impact). Those should be the main sources used for the article. The mass of match reports from the WTA itself is a discouraging sign in the aspects of displaying the notability and the quality of the article.

What is the point of those flags? There are several violations here with MOS:FLAGS in regards to their use here: reason for emphasis (why should Doubles where players of any nationality can pair together be flagged?), failure to state country names on first use, etc.

What makes rightpundits.com and realclearsports, both blogs without evidence of editorial oversight per Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-28/Dispatches and Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches? Jappalang (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! The inclusion of those flag icons is a standard procedure on articles about tennis players, but I will think about it.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 18:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as my experiences (in Football/soccer articles) have shown me, flagrant flag usage is not a "standard procedure" but a practice in violation of the MoS because the implementers want to see "pretty pictures" instead of making the article accessible to everybody as much as possible. Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * GOP is correct though, it is standard procedure in tennis articles to show flags, even in infoboxes. Using them is not against MOSFLAG as tennis is a very international sport with Davis Cup, Fed Cup, Olympics and even the Grand Slam tournament websites (from which much source material is taken) containing the nationality of players with flags. It never is for citizenship or residence per say... just for nationality with regards to these international tournaments. It is a very visual world these days for our readers. That aside, in most tennis articles MOSFLAG is being blatantly ignored with regards to flag names on first use. I've tried changing a few tables and added names on first use as other reviews have told us, but editors usually change it back for conformity. I think it's a losing battle. As for the coverage, you said you feared what would happen if Navratilova had a year by year... take a look at Serena Williams and you'll be shocked. Navratilova has a separate page for stats and wikipedia has determined that each slam winner in history can be given separate pages for each year. So we have "2011 Roger Federer", "2010 Roger Federer", "2009 Roger Federer", "Roger Federer the junior years", etc... Svetlana has much smaller year by year info so like many players it is included on her main page until such time as it grows too large and needs to be moved to a separate page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that I said "flagrant flag usage" (and I acknowledge the "losing battle" part); as pointed out above, my grouse, aside from the violation of naming on first use, is with their use in Mixed doubles (a match category that does not concern nationality at all). As for what other tennis articles are doing, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST pretty much explains the sentiment; if one is aiming to make a quality article (on par with FA levels or would gain ready support at WT:GAN if its promotion was questioned), then one should ignore the other low quality stuff and forge the article along the guidelines and policies.  My idea of a quality sports biography would be one that presents to the reader (who may or may not be interested in tennis) an idea of who Kuznetsova is (her education, her personal life and beliefs, her family and friends, etc.) and her achievements as a whole (not year by year but by what impact she had on the sports and the community).  Details are used to flesh those ideas, but they should never overwhelm the reader (which I believe is the case here and would be worse in the articles brought up above).  Jappalang (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)