Talk:2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section/table entry missing[edit]

It has been forgotten to include the 2011 Hopman Cup as part of this season. Apart of that if ever concerned on covering exhibition matches Novak was featured in the 2011 Boodles Challenge and in Bogota. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the ATP does not count the Hopman cup in its season, so for that reason we omit it, and the other event is an exhibition, which I am not for sure how we should handle it. I think we need to leave them out of the tables, but mention them in the yearly summary section.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although our current ‎season in wiki has the Hopman cup and has it for several years back and since this article is about 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season and not 2011 Novak Djokovic ATP tennis season I thought all info on tennis should fit in. Anyway the summary looks okay for me, and the exhibition can also go under an exhibition subsection as in Andy Murray's Andy Murray career statistics#Exhibition tournaments. As he doesn't have his own yearly season articles I think that latter one is a good example for wiki standards covering exhibition mathces in career pages like this one (also you can use the same format for a similar timetable). Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 08:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on integrating the stuff you mentioned over the next couple of days.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done!The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Shanghai Rolex Masters[edit]

He withdrew from the Shanghai Rolex Masters as well ref. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got it but from a secondary source, which is what Wikipedia wants if at all possible. We generally don't use primary sources if we have suitable secondary ones to utilize. I just want to thank you for helping out!The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics[edit]

Should we attach a statistics section at the bottom of the page? Like H2H, winning ratio, matchfacts compiled in a year-to-date stats. It might be interesting as well to add his H2H against top10/top50 players only for this season and regarding the fact that he's present in all categories of Ricoh ATP Matchfacts (8 of which are within top 10 rank and 2-2 of which he's in the first and second place respectively) it would also serve as valuable information. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as for the H2H let's just wait until the end of the season because with his current three losses it wouldn't make so much sense. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the rest. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could add YTD H2H, if you would like. I am loving this article after your great edits.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Green tickY Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also thinking on expanding the "Singles schedule" section with an accumulated points coloumn (for the YTD rankings) and with a prize money coloumn with an overall row at the bottom (because it's currently record-breaking one). Agreed? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 06:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree by all means go for it!The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I figured out that the overall points (bottom of the new points coloumn) is almost the same as the YTD points except for the Davis cup but I will fix that. As for the prize money : any idea on how ton convert euros to dollar? I mean it would be hard to find the exchange rate for the day it has been cashed in. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Green tickY Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

match rank coloumn[edit]

After a further look at the 2011 Roger Federer tennis season it seems like it counts the matches from the start of professional career so the rank count represents the overall rank. Should we change the Yearly Match Number the same way to make them identical? I think it's a better choice if we are expecting more Novak Djokovic tennis season articles to come...Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So does the 2011 Rafael Nadal tennis season and all their other seasons. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are not career articles, they are season articles, so I would ideally not be for changing the numbers like those other two. Plus, I would advocate changing those to match other seasons of teams like 2011 Green Bay Packers season. I think if you want to go back and put all of his career matches together we could start a career article and number them like you are wanting.The Gypsy Vagabond Man (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mubadala World Tennis Championship[edit]

The source is ESPN:

‘’World No.1 Novak Djokovic will kick off his 2012 season against Gael Monfils at the Mubadala World Tennis Championship in Abu Dhabi.‘’

Link http://www.espn.co.uk/tennis/sport/story/125669.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoDu (talk • contribs) 09:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same ESPN: ‘’Novak Djokovic ended 2011 in the same vein in which he started the year, beating David Ferrer‘’ AND ‘’Meanwhile, Rafael Nadal avenged his thrashing at the hands of Roger Federer last month as he closed out 2011 with a victory‘’ . Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware that you will say this, that's why I reasoned in my edit summary like this:It is HIS preparation for the season (or kick off, you can call it anyhow), but ATP World Tour starts January 2nd and that's a fact. We can't adjust all official tennis articles to players' conceptions about their seasons.
And of course there are sources that don't just quote a player and relies on him, but use their commons sense:

Times Of India - a New York Times subsidiary

Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is mine opinion that this tournament is part of 2012 pre-season. It doesn't matter that is held at the end of 2011. In a same way that until 1985 or so ATP Tour Finals were held in the next calendar year. Besides Mubadala World Tennis Championship for 2011 season was held in January 2011. I believe that this season's edition was moved from January 2012 to December 2011 only to make room for this season's Olympic tournament.
P.S. I just saw that official ATP World Tour event calendar was taken as an argument. It is pretty much invalid because this tournament is not part of ATP World Tour. Nightfall87 (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guessing the reason for reschedulin is not part of a discussion. It has been moved thus it happens in 2011. It's not part of the 2012 calendar (yes,not sanctioned by ATP) so WHY move it to 2012 calendar? Just because Djokovic regards it as HIS preparation for 2012? That's against primary source principal of Wikipedia AND the other players all participate in official ATP tournies before the AO to "kick off their" season (so for the majority it's not a preparation). Just because it's Djokovic's season article it's not him who decides a season's start or end. Considering all these four reasons tell me what remains for a thing happened in 2011 to be a 2012 event. Last year Djokovic said the Davis Cup win gave him power and inspiration for 2011 and also started his winning streak and the points awarded were counted towards the 2011 race and despite all this it didn't mean that the Cup was a part of his next season. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mubadala World Tennis Championship is not part of the 2011 ATP World Tour. It is a fact. I will not let you add this tournament to the article about Djokovic's 2011 ATP World Tour. What I can accept as compromise is creation of a new article about Djokovic's exhibition matches. BoDu (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not part of the 2012 neither. Let's move to the second criteria : it's date. 2011. How can anyone argue with that? The title of this article is 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season. It covers everything that is tennis and happened in 2011 and done by Novak Djokovic. That's all. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. He may use it as a warmup to the 2012 season, but it's an exhibition and the final was scheduled in 2011. So 2011 is where it belongs. In the past events like the Australian Open played 95% of the tourney in December with the final taking place in the first few days of January, while retaining the January date for the whole tournament. But if you have an entire tournament situated within one year, in this case 2011, how can we call it anything but 2011? They may call it a 2012 event, heck they can call it anything they want, but it happened in 2011. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template shows win-loss record of 70-6 which proves my claim that this article is about the 2011 ATP World Tour regarding Novak Djokovic. I say again: what I can accept as compromise is creation of a new article about Djokovic's exhibition matches. BoDu (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The template shows the official (ATP) win-loss (with exhibitions excluded) - I created the template so I am very aware what it is made for... No need for new page as exhibitions don't stand notablity on their own. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is logical that a template shows win-loss record of ALL matches that article covers. As the template does not include exhibitions, it is clear that this article is about the ATP World Tour. BoDu (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. If you are new to Wikipedia it's not a problem, but then don't make statements like this. Player's bio pages and the templates within them also show the official (ATP) record of each player (excluded the exhibitions they've played during their career/lifetime). So your reasoning here is against all standards. Check it for yourself and let's finish this. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The template does not include exhibitions. You just need common sense to understand that you are wrong. BoDu (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the template...just ask the purposes of each parameter. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 12:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to ask you anything. BoDu (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand that win-loss has nothing to do with our topic. So any other pro-s to underpin your opinion? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 13:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argumentation that I already provided is enough to support my claim. BoDu (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fyunck(click) and Lajbi on this point that in order for historical accuracy it must go on the 2011 article not the 2012 one. Most media says 2011, so we must go with it regardless of the tournaments intentions on the matter.HotHat (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a bird in a cage to the ones, who want it on the 2012 article, I can agree to a compromise in the fact we can list it both places on the 2011 and 2012 article with a note to the discrepancy as to the reason for inclusion on both pages. God, I wish you all can get over this little snipe because we have so much more important work to do on this wiki. May peace reign out to you all, because blessed are the peacemakers for they shall inherit the earth. LOVE!HotHat (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with HotHat also. I might have used a link on the 2012 article that links back to the 2011 article. Something like "*note - the 2012 Mubadala Exhibition took place entirely in 2011 and can be found here". Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which I have now done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup task[edit]

Through discussion on the project tennis, Lajbi has asked other editors to look at this page, which need to be improved according to recent peer review. Also we should try to reduce the length because it is already over 100 kB threshold, which is unheard of for an individual season article. As soon as the current page protection is lifted I plan on starting with the following edits:

  • tournaments in which Djokovic didn't appear (because withdraw or injury) can be completely removed. This is about his 2011 season, so no need to report on when he didn't play.
  • exhibition matches and hopman should be moved out in a separate section that comes behind the slams and main tournaments. Exhibition play is not very important , so coverage on it can be significantly shorter, otherwise we are giving it WP:UNDUE weight.
  • Lajbi agrees to remove some of the stats and the table with finals. For now we should just bring that section in line with what we find on other season article like for Federer and Nadal. The awards section is also too long, only the notable awards should be in the list.
  • I think the season timeline is a good idea, but we can work to improve it and also see if they can also be made for the other individual season articles (not just for Djokovic). But I am open to any other opinions on these timelines.
  • There are too many sentences with "Djokovic would...". Where they are completely unnecessary I will start to remove them already.

We will then see where this takes us and what other steps to consider. If you disagree with this proposal, then just speak your mind. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all the above said. As for the timeline, its syntax makes my hands tied. It isn't simply possible to put all information in it as it is possible with the complementary Template:Horizontal timeline. I was thinking on creating a tournaments scale for universal usage (implementable for other players) as in Formula one race articles such as 2011 Hungarian Grand Prix (lap leaders in infobox). It is made like one full scale for each season and an inner parameter triggers which race appears in the infobox. I examined all possibilities to build a similar one, but it's much more complex than useful regarding the short number of season articles which it could be used in. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 13:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. We can have a template that includes switchable data for all players who have season articles like this one. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should agree to never write about all matches in prose like the French Open was, we should only reserve prose in season article to QF, SF, and F matches of tournaments and less if it is a non-major or slam.HotHat (talk) 08:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we really need some clear standards like that, in order to create more consistency in the player and season articles. But I think that is a subject we should discuss on the project Tennis page, so that we get a broader concensus (if possible). Personally I think that if we are to have more detailed prose about matches, then it should be better kept in the main article about the tournament. Now these tournament pages are often empty of any prose, even for Masters tournaments. We have too much detail in the individual player and player season articles, and almost none in the tournament articles. And that's why we have constant problems with player article size. When match details are in the tournament main article (e.g. from QF finals onward), then we can be more brief in the player or season article, just mentioning finals reached and/or won in what can be a more compact paragraph. People who want more detail can then click on the link to the tournament page to read the brief match reports. That also mean the match details are only described once, while now they are often repeated in two player's articles. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ricoh matchfacts link isn't a good replacement for the statistics as it shows the current 2012 statistics. Maybe it'x not that bad having an archived file of it here (using this as ref) on WP. Without Wiki and ATP, majority of readers won't find it. Although coloumn trimming of the table is still agreed. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have replaced it with a link that shows plenty 2011 stats. ATP site is better source than stevegtennis. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a link to our own statistics 2011_ATP_World_Tour#Statistics_leaders wouldn't be a bad call either. In the style of the Main article:xxx' just below the section title. Your thoughts? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about the article title? If words like year and season are inappropriate then I suggest using overview/summary/achievements. Like "Novak Djokovic's 2011 tennis summary" (or similar) placing the date after the name as advised in the peer review. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you will get a concensus on changing the name of these "season" articles. Because it will mean we have to change all of them. As long as the few non-season events like exhibition matches are not given undue weight, it is not a big deal to have them in. There is more important cleanup to do, and even entire main tour season articles that need to be written for the 70s and 80s.
HotHat also pointed out to me that we are supposed to avoid scores in the prose of our articles. That means that many of our player and tournament articles need to have the scores cleaned out. I think we should also do away with most references to how many minutes a set or match took, unless it was unusually short or long. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least move the date prefix from the title to be the attribute of the season. I plan to nominate it for another peer review after the revamping will be done and I want all previous concerns about the article fixed by then...Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 15:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? Afaik we have to start with the year for this kind if article , e.g. 2011 in sports , not Sports in 2011. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just quoting:' "Novak Djokovic's 2011 tennis season" would be an acceptable form.' Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 16:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most cleanup of the English language now done. Lot of fancruft removed. Still some "sources" that are spread throughout the article have to be fixed. Anything else? MakeSense64 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer asked for dates to be present in the prose as well. I will add them soon. It became necessary as the Davis Cup and exhibitions moved to the end of the article. It mislead readers that they happened after the Finals. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 22:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the season prose is going to be diminished greatly then exhibitions should be removed altogether via UNDUE!HotHat (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with that but not the Hopman Cup. That's an Official Team Competition of the ITF. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to see some further improvements being done. I wouldn't be too quick to start adding dates. If we add dates to every mentioned match, then the prose is not going to benefit from that. We can't always have everything in one place. People who want to know the exact dates can always click on the wikilink to the main article about given tournament. We can add some date for Davis Cup and Hopman Cup, because they have been moved out of the chronological order. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe adding only the month to its very first tournament will help readers situate the events in time. Like attaching this to the start of the AO paragraph : "In January Djokovic took on the four-time and reigning champion Roger Federer" and so on. It only means 11 month indications overall. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

As MakeSense said some of the refs moved around the article and the texts they are referring to are also been copyedited. This affected some of the references, which thus were rendered less supportive. They aren't backing up the claims any more and trapping the paragraphs into WP:ORIGINAL. Some examples (please help to clean these up):

  • During that crucial game, they were embroiled in a 39-shot tussle, which gave the exhausted Serb a break point - "looked to the heavens in relief" doesn't exactly mean he was exhausted, and considering he immediately "upped the ante" possibly it wasn't so.checkY
  • The second set was very close, with Djokovic converting his fourth matchpoint to win the title, his second Masters title on clay courts this year. - no counting of "clay Masters" mentioned in ref.
  • Federer went into the match with a 13-9 lead in their head to head matchup as well as a 2-1 lead in their head-to-head on clay. - no head-to-head in refcheckY
  • This ended Djokovic's perfect season so far, a 43 match winning streak, and his chance to win the Calender Year Grand Slam. - nothing like this in ref. Though obvious but not referenced. Also casual reader doesn't understand what it means.checkY

That's it for now. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 23:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good comments. Some of these statements are backed by other sources in the article. So we can fix that. When it is OR we better remove. What to do with the external links posted below most of the tables. I see "2010 source", "2011 source" and so on. Is that normal way of referencing for such tables? And why do we need the "2010 source" in 2011 article? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For comparaison. The tables have results from both years. Referencing the points row-by-row would cost more than a bottom source. But I Don't know if there's a wikistandard for this. Since it's a tennis project invention, we can decide which one to use. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics[edit]

I'm thinking on adding a new paragraph in prose about his improvement merely based on his statistics to replace the removed wikitable. Since Djokovic improved on all fields of the game I want to highlight it by summarizing his "matchfacts". It would be called "Improvement from last year" or something like this and would be in the same style as this article (its to-be reference). Any thoughts? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would just add a small paragraph about it in the "place in history" section or so. Need not be more than a sentence or so. You can use that link as a reference. Many players improve (or get worse) from year to year. If we start making sections for such statistical comparisons, then where are we going to end with it? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we better rename the "Place in history" section to "Analysis". MakeSense64 (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with the title renaming for that section. I'll try to cut it short by concentrating on the two year stats that he finished number one. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will standardize the refs as well (match the date formats) and after that I will ask for another peer review maybe this time we'll have better luck (crossing fingers) Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. checkY Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 17:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still see external links right below most tables. That's not the normal way to add references , afaik. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the general way of referencing (tennis) wikitables is not referencing them at all. Look at Novak Djokovic career statistics, Rafael Nadal career statistics, Roger Federer career statistics and only that of Federer's is tagged with verification notice. I'm not saying that it is good but the common habit is that the "ATP player activity" is sticked at the very bottom of the page and the reader is expected to justify the claims by using a calculator and an ATP rulebook with that source. I guess that's the reason none of the above linked articles are featured lists at least (FA is girldream). The current form here is more than that. So what is your tip? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW all three] of the project's featured lists are also unreferenced. None of the links are affiliated with the tables (only some footnotes referencing some of the specific cases). I still think it's bad but we can remove all the refs paired with the tables and these examples show that it still can be featured. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List articles are considered a bit different from normal articles. As long as the items in the list are blue links, it means they have their own WP article and are thus supposed to be sourced. Only red links or non-linked items would need to have a reference to justify their entry. This is for practical reason. In very long lists you would often have an even longer list of sources to back up each entry. It is not necessary if the entries can be verified on their individual WP article. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So in case of articles...? I can link all the players' bios and still there will be no refs to tables. Here's a good article (Federer–Nadal rivalry) and still unreferenced. What to do? Remove these (appropriate as a reference) sources from the bottom basically because there are no red links or else? Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 10:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For articles (and also for prose in "list articles") we will always need references. I have changed the external links to normal references below some of the tables. I think that's how it should be done here. We could add "Source:" in front of the ref. MakeSense64 (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some. I will use the Notes section for them. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is listed of having 14-0 record against non top50 players ("other players"). In the list, bold are top10 and italic top50. Then why he is marked to have lost to Kei Nishikori, who is not marked as top10 or top50? That would mean he lost to an "other player". 82.141.66.232 (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It was there all the time, just the editor only put the Japanese flag in italic. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 09:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review[edit]

Sp33dyphil was so kind and reviewed the article. Please have a look. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 20:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Things that needs to be fixed:
  • "He didn't lose" Replace contraction. Please check throughout the article.
  • "The Wimbledon Championships and the US Open"
  • "Although his pace slowed by year's end, Djokovic only lost six matches, while winning seventy." --> "Although his pace slowed by year's end, Djokovic's remarkable win-loss ratio was six-seventy."
  • "43 match" hyphens -- normally they'd be two separate words/numbers, but in this case they're adjectives when working together. Same with "their head to head matchup"; please check throughout the article.
  • "US$12.6 million dollars"
  • "but hit a ineffective" replace a with an.
  • "But Djokovic let Federer to gain control" omit to.
  • MOS encourages the inclusion of alt text.
  • Two dead links.
  • Please follow the "In/on [date], [text]" construction, where the comma goes after the date to separate two clauses.
  • References should go after punctuation.
  • Caption missing for infobox photo.
  • Magazine/newspaper titles should be italicised.
  • "3rd Greatest tennis" Why isn't "third greatest"?
  • Referencing looks to be a problem. Having said that, prose hasn't done itself any favours - this reads disjointed and can be easily expanded. The worrying thing is there are next to nothing quotes from Djokovic himself. What did he think about winning Wimbledon? Could he have done anything better this season? Does he think he has peaked? What do ex-pros and current tennis stars think about Djokovic's season? Has been answered I see.
  • For any BBC website you cite, you can leave the author parameter blank if not stated anywhere in the publication. Remove 'BBC Sports staff', change publisher to 'BBC' and add 'work' as 'BBC Sport'. I've done an example for you to do with the others.
  • Ref 4 published on guardian.co.uk not The Guardian newspaper. Similarly Ref 30 published on The Observer, not Guardian.
  • "Djokovic met Federer in the semifinals of Indian Wells...Djokovic quickly broke Federer...Djokovic did this...Djokovic likes to hear about Djokovic...", It does read tiresome. You do know you can refer to him as 'he'?
  • Under Miami Masters, "In the second half of March...", is that really the right terminology to use?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 Novak Djokovic tennis season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Novak_Djokovic_tennis_season&oldid=1196596195"