Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suzanne Lenglen/archive5

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 October 2021 [1].

Suzanne Lenglen[edit]

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, a French tennis player from the 1920s. She won Wimbledon six times in singles and six times in doubles, and may have won many more major titles if she didn't retire from amateur tennis in 1926 at just 27 years old to turn professional. She never lost a match in Europe after World War I, but did lose the only amateur match she played in the United States. Although Lenglen is no longer as famous as the current top players, many fans of tennis today will recognize her name from Court Suzanne Lenglen at the French Open. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments the infobox photo is fantastic but I can barely see what she looks like in it, which is the purpose of an infobox photo. I suggest moving it further down and using this one instead in the infobox. Skimming through the article it looks well-written and researched, but one thing that seems to be missing is any information about how her death was received? Did France and the tennis world publicly mourn for her? Was her legacy immediately analysed and reassessed?

It's weird that even her death itself is written about so little. When I saw her dates in the opening sentence I went looking for what happened (there's nothing in the lede) and because she died so young I thought there would be a section or sub-section about it, but I had to scroll around for a bit before I found it in Personal life.—indopug (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi indopug, that's a good point. Besides where she was buried, the book also mentions where her funeral was held and lists some of the famous people from her life who attended. (I could add that?) I think the funeral was open to the public, but it doesn't say how many people were there. My impression from the books is that her death was relatively ignored. Part of the reason for that is because she had not really been in the public eye since she retired. The other reason is that her successor, Helen Wills, was making a comeback at Wimbledon the week she died and the tennis world was more focused on that. The New York Times obituary summarizes her life, but her early death did not change how she was perceived. The French obituaries are similar, I think. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I zoomed in more on the infobox photo. I didn't want to use the other photo of her sitting on a bench because it is not so representative of how she looked as a tennis player. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Quick comments Not a lot to say at this point, but some issues:

  • Source 4: 61 pages is way too long. Break it down.
    • This section of the book is a list of all of her matches (like a WTA profile that recent and current players have). I shortened the instances when it was being used for specific events in the prose. I don't think it makes sense to shorten it for the career statistics section or the infobox, since the information in those sections spans her whole career (e.g. the timelines of her Grand Slam results). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, fn 87 and 88 are pushing it. (For an inconclusive discussion about this, see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 51#Page numbers)
  • Reference required for the Major Finals section.
  • Consider adding the Olympics to the Major Finals
  • fn 78 should be pp. 118–123; fn 86 should be pp. 619–620 (MOS:PAGERANGE: number ranges in general, such as page ranges, should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, with an en dash between)

Feel free to argue with me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Giving another lookover Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay - looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. I did tighten the language quite a bit with my first read-through before this FAC. Looking now I can't see any obvious prose-clangers but I am often not adept at picking things up after first read-through. Still i think this is in striking distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

Quite a star worthy of quite a long article. Little to remark, mostly minor points:

  • Suzanne Rachel Flore Lenglen[6] -- Keep the lead free from references. If you add birthname = to the infobox you can add the ref there
    • I think it's typical to put this type of citation here. I've been told before not to put full names in the infobox when the only difference is that the person has middle name(s). Alternatively, I could write her full name at the start of the "Early life" section and cite it there? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both methods would do the job. You can choose or do both at the same time. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 Grand Slam singles titles, 21 in total, and 10 other World Championship titles.[c] -- this is confusing me. This feels like too much detail for the lead. Can't we just say 21 titles in total, of which 8 Grand Slam singles? And just leave all the detail and footnote for the body of the article.
    • Re-worded to: "winning 8 Grand Slam titles in singles and 21 in total. She also had 4 other World Championship titles in singles and 10 in total." The singles count is more important than the total. The World Championship titles are separate ("sort of", it's confusing). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In doubles, she was undefeated with her usual partner Elizabeth Ryan -- they were defeated the first time they played, so don't think we can say it like this
    • Handicap events don't count and are more like exhibition matches. (Also, "doubles" is a different discipline than "handicap doubles".) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, but then I would recommend you add a note further down where you describe the handicap doubles event in Monte Carlo, explaining that handicap matches don't count. As it stands to the uninformed reader it looks contradictionary. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • triple crown -- I would explain what that means rather than depend on the link
  • What is missing in the first paragraph is her number of titles in the doubles and mixed doubles, and the number of Grand Slams of each.
    • The 21 in total means 21 between singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. Changed the wording of that sentence to clarify that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lenglen's father attended tournaments on the Riviera circuit, where the world's best players competed in the first half of the year. -- the word tennis should go in here somewhere
  • was to Suzanne Amblard -- was to Amblard
  • Her volleying ability was instrumental -- according to whom?
  • after her partner suffered an ankle injury -- who was that?
    • It wasn't anyone important. In the interest of space, I left out all of her doubles and mixed doubles partners who were only mentioned once, and weren't particularly significant. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final was the shortest in Wimbledon history -- is it still?
  • signed a $50,000 contract -- what's this in today's $?
    • The book doesn't convert to a present-day value. I think it would be WP:OR (and subjective) to do it myself. The comparison to Babe Ruth's salary is meant to put it into context. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have seen a few FACs converting old money into current. There is a standard way of doing it, although I have never used it myself. I will have a look later to try and find it, but perhaps some of the other reviewers or coordinators could enlighten us. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • an offer of 200,000 francs -- give conversion to today's $ so we can compare with later offer
  • a one set match -- a one-set match?
  • 4000 .. 13,000 -- is it a conscious decision to use , in the latter but not in the former? Would be nicer to have a , in all big numbers throughout the article I think
  • in 1927 and kept that ranking through the end of 1933 and nine of the next twelve years -- next is a bit ambiguous: is it from 1933 onwards?
    • Rephrased to "kept that ranking for the next six years and nine of the next twelve overall until 1938" (It's from 1927 though 1938.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lenglen completed three Wimbledon triple crowns – winning the singles, doubles, and mixed doubles events at a tournament in the same year -- while I agree the term should be explained, this is way too late. Should be at the first use of the term in the lead and then again the first use in the body
    • Repeated the definition at the first instance in the body. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • including the 1919 Wimbledon final against Dorothea Lambert Chambers -- use last name only if person already introduced
  • nd her first match against Molla Mallory, -- same
  • at a cost of up to 500 francs -- give conversion to today's $
  • equivalent to about $44 in the United States -- not sure if this is today's $
  • one in 1947 another from 1950 to 1951 -- add a comma?
  • Gibson played in a series of warmup matches for the Harlem Globetrotters, an exhibition basketball team in the United States. -- while interesting, I think we're straying off topic here.
    • I think if I only clarify what Betz did, the reader would wonder what Gibson did. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • short-sleeved and calf-length pleated blouse -- I'm the opposite of a fashion expert but I thought blouse is for the top, quite far removed from the calf
  • Performance timelines -- I'm not sure what a W means that is not in green. The legend does not explain the colour coding
  • Books: a few publishers are missing location of publisher
  • The one bigger issue I have is about the overall use of references: It is far easier for anyone doing a source review if you put more specific references throughout the paragraph, instead of just at the end of a dozen sentences. For example, [24][25]: these page ranges are quite wide. Better to make them more specific. But check other paragraphs as well.

That's it from me. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Edwininlondon! I replied to everything above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Support. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1922_(instant)_(cropped)_3.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:Match_of_the_Century_-_False_Ending.jpeg: there's some discussion of the significance of this photo in the image description, but the article itself, not so much. Suggest switching to the generic fair-use tag.
  • File:Suzanne_lenglen_1920.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switched to just the PD-anon-1923 tag. (The authors Herbert Fox and/or Frederic Glover have unknown death dates.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but there is an author credit to a different partnership? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I realized I meant to tag it as PD-1923 / PD-US-expired (fixed that!). Maull and Fox were succeeded by H. Fox and Glover, but the company name stayed the same. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

It seems like the sources are consistently formatted. Is Collins, Bud the same as Bud Collins? Same for Helen Hull Jacobs and Helen Jacobs? As far as I can tell the sources seem reliable but this isn't my area of expertise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, did you want them linked? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
iff they are the same person, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked those, and a few others. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Suzanne_Lenglen/archive5&oldid=1050463226"