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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2016 [1].

Milos Raonic[edit]

Nominator(s): Saskoiler (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Milos Raonic, a Canadian tennis player who is currently ranked no. 11 in the world. His breakthrough was in early 2011 (when this wikipedia article first received major attention), and he's had a steady climb since then, peaking at #4 last year before injury trouble. He is a two-time major semifinalist, most recently at this year's Australian Open. The article has gone through an extensive overhaul this year (as documented here), been promoted to GA, and has gone through a peer review.

I believe this article meets the FA criteria. I look forward to any feedback you have, and I'm committed to addressing any concerns or deficiencies to the best of my ability. If this nomination is successful, this would be the first tennis player biography to be a featured article; I'm hoping to apply what I've learned during this process to improve other articles as well. -- Saskoiler (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards[edit]

Oppose - There are numerous unsourced facts. For a FA all statements, which are not common knowledge, require inline citations of reliable sources. Graham Beards (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide some examples? I'd be happy to address any deficiencies. Saskoiler (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but please by mindful that FAC is not the place to fix such errors. These should have been attended to before nominating.
Graham Beards (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've addressed all of the examples listed above as well as a few others. I had tried to get everything sourced previously (going from 68 citations a couple months ago to well over 230), but I see now that I had left some gaps. I appreciate your feedback and patience. — Saskoiler (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have struck my "oppose" and I look forward to reading further reviews. Graham Beards (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from starship.paint[edit]

Review
Wonderful! I look forward to your feedback. Saskoiler (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Early and personal life
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Added a source which confirms the PhD is electrical engineering. Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Added this detail. After much searching, I couldn't confirm which discipline the master's degree was in, so it is left unstated. Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've added their age differences, and also their schooling. I think the family's academic background are important to show why choosing to become a professional athlete would have been a difficult decision. Saskoiler (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Good catch. I tried to resolve the disperity, but could not. Both sources agree that his time with Curtis started in 2009, but one says start in 2007 with a two-year gap, and the other says start in 2008 with a one-year gap. I've taken your advice for "six or seven". Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Yes, I think so. It's part of their emphasis on academics. Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've added elementary and high school detail here. (university is addressed later in article) Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done (Curtis) - I've added Curtis to this list. As his coach for ~9 years, he absolutely belongs. That was a glaring omission.
Not done (Gibson) - I have not added Gibson, however, for a few reasons (a) It was a very brief relationship (once a week, less than a year). (b) It wasn't one-on-one... source says "group sessions". (c) Raonic himself says that Curtis is his first coach (d) I searched hard, but could not find any other source article that even mentions Gibson. So, since it seems to be a more casual relationship mentioned by only a single source, I think it is best to limit it to one sentence in prose and skip the infobox. Any more seems to be undue weight. Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done (mentioned injury) Saskoiler (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Canadian Open" vs "Rogers Cup" - When I began working on the article, there were all sorts of inconsistencies in references to tournaments. For example, a tournament might be referred to as "Canadian Masters" in one paragraph, as the "Rogers Cup" in a different paragraph, and then as "Canadian Open" in the performance timeline tables. But it's all the same tournament, and this is confusing. So, after scouring the Wikiproject Tennis guidelines and talk pages (where it has been discussed many, many times, with varying degrees of consensus), I opted to (a) use tournament names consistently throughout the article (and on the companion career statistics article) and (b) in general, use the non-sponsored names as these are more "stable" over time. For example, the Canadian Open has been referred by numerous names over history. In particular, for the significant tournaments (majors and ATP 1000, which includes the Canadian Open), I follow the Wikiproject Tennis guidelines for performance timelines, which is used on hundreds (or thousands?) of tennis player pages. Saskoiler (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've located another source (video) which confirms that his tennis club is the Monte Carlo Country Club, and then cleaned up the sentence to be more relevant. (Mentioning his home club is much more relevant than other players who happen to live there.) Saskoiler (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Philanthropy
Done - Looks like the registration date was Feb 2012, then the first press conference some months later (couldn't find a good source, but I came across photos), and then had its first big fundraising event in November. All of these are "launching" the foundation in a way, so I just fell back on saying the foundation was launched in 2012. I also added details from the previous year when Milos sought out philanthropic advice. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've added to the mission statement quote. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've cleaned this up. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've cleaned this up as well, by reorganizing the paragraph and identifying one additional source. In the first year, they had both a "Raonic Race for Kids" event and "Face Off" tennis exhibition matches the next night. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall a stellar effort in answering my queries so far. I hope to be able to take another look at the article on Monday or Friday. starship.paint ~ KO 10:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Playing style
Done - I wasn't able to find much about the author of that article to validate its reliability (although the article seems valid based on my experience). So, I replaced it with two sources - one is a video analysis showing Raonic doing the inside-out forehand (from a tennis player/coach), and the other is a mainstream newspaper which notes that he prefers the shot. Many other newspaper articles mention the shot as a strength of his, or a preference, etc. Saskoiler (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I think the site is reliable. In this instance, the quote was accurate. However, since the key was really just a single quote from the press conference, I replaced the source with the press conference transcript. (In general, the "playing style" section is one of the hardest to provide sources for. The statements made there consistent with comments by announcers on just about any match of Raonic's, but I don't know how to source comments made during broadcasts in a verifiable way. Finding them in newspaper/online sources is harder.) Saskoiler (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the cited source is a 68-second video of footage from the 2016 Australian Open which has been annotated to demonstrate how Raonic is running around his backhand to hit an inside-out forehand. In the footer, it says "... an ITF iCoach Expert..." which links to here. That site is, according to this, an official coaching platform for the International Tennis Federation. It identifies Rob Cherry as a 20-year coach, and establishes him as an expert (i.e. someone who can analyze/recognize an inside-out forehand). I believe this is trustworthy. Saskoiler (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Saskoiler: This said he was a hothead. This alluded to poor mental strength. Any other information on this issue? starship.paint ~ KO 07:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Mental strength" (inner thoughts) is such a subjective term, and I think different writers mean different things by it. The source you mention: "Mentally...Milos has a lot to improve. ... The step he has between himself and the top players is more mental." This source, from earlier the same year (2012) says: "The kid’s mental strength is remarkable". Or, from the 2016 Australian Open match vs Murray, this source says "There is still question marks over his mental strength", while this source uses an image caption: "Mental strength: Raonic won the third set with relative ease". I will keep searching, but I'm not sure I can write anything coherent and meaningful on the topic based on sources I've read so far.
On the other hand, the other source you mention ("a hothead") may be something to build upon. I've heard that very early in his career, he used to be demonstrably emotional on court... behavior that could be described as a hothead. For the last several years, I would say he's just the opposite, practically robot-like. So much so that when he smashed his racquet during the 2016 Australian Open SF, it was absolutely shocking. So, I think there may be something to build upon with respect to his outward display of emotions, which is less subjective than "mental strength". I'll need to search for other sources, however.
Okay, I've researched this a fair bit, the result of which is a new paragraph saying (1) at young age, he was described as hothead (2) as he got older, he was described as the opposite (analytical, stoic, robotic) (3) he ties his systematic demeanour back to his parents. I was not able to find any second opinion that mentions anything close to the "hothead" comment. Hope this works. - Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Equipment and apparel
Done Saskoiler (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done (inline reference) - Copied an inline reference down to cover other sleeve details.
Not Done ("basketball sleeve") - I didn't alter the language to include "basketball sleeve" in the prose. After reading at least a half dozen sources, I believe that "basketball sleeve" is just a synonym along with more general terms such as "arm sleeve", "arm compression sleeve", "compression sleeve", "athletic sleeve", and "athletic compression sleeve". In light of this, I've kept the most generic (and yet descriptive) term: athletic compression sleeve. Basketball players, football players, baseball players, etc. all wear these things on their arms. I believe "basketball sleeve" (or "shooter sleeve") may just be a marketing term to sell more in NBA shops, because it was basketball athletes who appear to have made them popular. Hope that makes sense. Saskoiler (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, it's fine. But I don't think the reference says that the fisherman's sleeve is blue.
Done - Removed the word 'blue'. Saskoiler (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - To be honest, my first reaction was that this was a trivial suggestion. However, once I looked at the new sentence, I see the value. It provides a more comprehensive view of the diversity of companies (not "just" companies that market to tennis players) that have find value in the Raonic brand and his marketability. So, thanks! Saskoiler (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome.
Done - Tweaked the language. Saskoiler (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rivals and contemporaries
Done - Both references to Bleacher Report replaced with alternate, higher quality sources with richer analysis. Thanks for all the feedback to improve the article. Saskoiler (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Both sources have been removed. Saskoiler (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur career
Not done - I wouldn't oppose if you had inserted it, but I don't think it is necessary. Doubles partnerships often span nationalities (probably the majority of the time). The article doesn't specify the nationalities of too many other players. Exceptions include Pospisil (special relationship), Nishikori (notable because Raonic played him in Japan Open), and various national representation sections (Olympics, etc.) Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright.
Done - Very good point. Saskoiler (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Moved citation from later in paragraph. Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Moved citation from later in paragraph. Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done (both) - Globe and Mail article: "...he would take university finance courses online..." Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - The canada.com article, dated September 2, 2008 said "Yesterday, the word was that Raonic has stiffed Cavaliers head coach..." → On September 1, his ranking was 933. However, I changed the language of that sentence to be a bit more generic (since no source pins the exact date of the conversations and "deadline deal" with his parents) and just give his ranking range for that summer. I think it reads better now. Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay!
2008–2010
Done - Well, actually I just changed the wording to "ITF Futures" to be consistent with the 8 other mentions of "ITF Futures" in the article. Saskoiler (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth mentioning from How Milos Raonic served his way to the top of tennis source: Raonic was ranked around 400 in the world in late 2009 when Niemeyer took over as his coach.
Done - No 377 Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who coached him before Niemeyer and after Curtis? 2008-2009 seems to be unaccounted for.
Done - Found two sources mentioning Guillaume Marx as coaching Raonic while he was based at the National Training Centre. Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When exactly did Blanco start coaching Raonic and what was Raonic's ranking then?
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The referencing in the Raonic's coaching relationship evolved paragraph needs to be tighter. Stuff like because he had a young family isn't covered by the provided source. Please double-check all the claims in this paragraph...
Done - I think the paragraph is much tighter now. Saskoiler (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention that he was knocked out in the second round of the 2010 Canadian Open after the giant-killing act.
Done Saskoiler (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he did. By approximately 5 months. (Assuming he made the deal in late August 2008, his ranking didn't enter the top 100 until January 2011.) Do you think that should be mentioned? If so, I think probably the best way to do it is to add a parenthetical note to the paragraph where the 2-year-deadline is mentioned, saying something like "(Raonic would later enter the top 100 in January 2011, missing the target deadline by approximately 5 months.)" and citing the rankings history. Yes? Saskoiler (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that's acceptable! Please do that. "around 5 months", please. starship.paint ~ KO 07:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Saskoiler (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2011
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2012
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2013
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2014
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2015
Done - Well, actually I moved the Raonic picture down to preserve the left-right-left-right picture placement scheme. - Saskoiler (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Done (but improved) - I think it belongs at the end of 2015 for a couple of reasons. [1] The beginning of the relationship goes back to right after Ljubičić left, developed through the IPTL, and was finalized in 2015. (Raonic says "And then it was decided and sort of put together just before the new year.") [2] I think it reads better to combine this in a single "coaching/team changes" paragraph with the departure of Ljubičić (and his long-time manager). To reflect this, I've bolstered that paragraph with additional detail and sources. Okay? Saskoiler (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - And also added McEnroe hiring - Saskoiler (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
National representation
No change I've chosen not to include any other Canadian team results in this article for a few reasons: [1] Canada's performances have been not been very noteworthy, bouncing between wins and losses each year and not "going deep". In some cases (like the victory over Israel in 2011), Raonic wasn't a key contributer (because he didn't play much or at all due to injury) and thus it's not really part of "his" story [2] The main article for Canada's performances contains this detail. Instead, I chose to focus on the noteworthy matches/years: (a) Raonic's first match, first victory, first (and only) time he played three rubbers (b) 2013, when Canada reached SF. Raonic played a major part in this performance, with 5 wins in 6 rubbers over three ties. Other player articles (e.g. Nishikori, Federer, Djokovic) tend not to list every Davis Cup performance, but rather focus on noteworthy matches or those where the player made the finals, etc. (However, Andy Murray's article is an exception in that it has tremendous detail on every year. I think this is undue weight, however.) Fair? - Saskoiler (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
Yes, that's right. I recall thinking that the 2016 PDF URL would eventually die, so I thought linking to the "base page" (Tennis Canada publications) would be clever. Then, when it is replaced by the 2017 media guide, etc, the link would still work. However, I've now just put an archived URL there.
Ideally, I'd like to have that PDF included in the references once, and then be able to link to specific pages for different citations. (For example, the media guide is used twice now, and perhaps more in the future.) However, I don't know how to do that. Saskoiler (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it out. Saskoiler (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Saskoiler: Okay! See my comments above! And how about this for the lede? He has remained in the world's top 20 since breaking into it in August 2012.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Starship.paint: I believe I've now addressed all of the questions raised above. Thanks for all your efforts. Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like your Davis Cup edit, and wish I had thought of it myself. I appreciate all of your thoroughness. This is my first time through this process, and I've learned a great deal from your many insights. The article is better now, both in the prose and in the supporting sources. Saskoiler (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Saskoiler: You're very welcome. (I put my support at the top now). I didn't know it's your first time, and actually I have just one FA myself. I'm trying for a second FA with this FAC. It hasn't received any comments yet, would you be able to comment? Thanks :) starship.paint ~ KO 14:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck on accuracy and paraphrasing

@Saskoiler, Ian Rose, and Mike Christie: - I did a check and there seems to be some issues here. I think the biggest issue is references not sourcing everything in a sentence, because I did notice generally a concerted effort to paraphrase for a majority of sources. starship.paint ~ KO 09:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: Thank you for agreeing to take on this additional review. I appreciate it. I have addressed all of the points you've raised below. Please let me know if you have further concerns. - Saskoiler (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Saskoiler: - alright, I am glad these are settled, though I also understand that more than half of the article's text was written by other users, which might have led to these errors, some of which should have been weeded out at GA. Hopefully you can do a full run-through of the article to check as mine was just a spotcheck. Additionally, I again request you check out my FAC which needs input. starship.paint ~ KO 08:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saskoiler, have you verified for yourself the rest of the referencing in the article is accurate and the writing free of close paraphrasing per Starship's recommendation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: Yes. I did so last week (but forgot to explicitly mention it here). I've taken another read through today. Saskoiler (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Citation added to playing record. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Citation added to playing record. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Citation added to playing record. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Detail removed. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Added another reference to his Davis Cup record which was in previous paragraph. - Saskoiler (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Added citation to official Olympic 2012 draw. - Saskoiler (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done It's arguably in the source, but I've simplified to just say "His groundstrokes are both good...". ("Groundstrokes" describes any shot - whether forehand or backhand - made after the ball bounces. This distinguishes them from serves or volleys.) - Saskoiler (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've simplified the prose. The source does not use that phrase (chip and charge), but it is implied by their emphasis on volleying throughout. Two types of volleys are "serve and volley" (when one approaches net immediately after your own serve) and "chip and charge" (when one approaches the net at any other time). The "charge" means to approach the net, and the "chip" is just the shot which sets that up.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Good catch! - Saskoiler (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fyunck[edit]

I added a required key for the performance chart. I added commas to the scores in the records section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also just ran it through the ndash checker and it fixed a couple minor errors. Overall this is is well done article per Tennis Project guidelines. It has a consistent use of of correct "world No." as opposed to "World No.". Scoring in prose (except for extraordinary feats) is correctly eliminated (as opposed to so many other articles). Photos are at their limit (we try to keep it to about 10) but they show backhand, forehand, serving, return of serve, volley... so a good variety of his particular tennis shots. I'm not sure we need a picture of a coach he had 4 coaches ago (of his total of 8 coaches). His stats look up to date, and the overall sourcing is impressive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits and for the feedback, Fyunck. I've certainly tried to be consistent with other tennis biographies, while at the same time following the WP:MOS and other guidelines. As to the picture of his former coach (Ivan Ljubičić)... (a) he was the coach during the most successful period of Raonic's career so far and (b) he was the coach as recently as November, 2015. So, I don't think there is any harm in keeping it in, at least for now. I could not locate a current (free) image of any of his current three coaches ( Moya, Piatti, or McEnroe) in a coaching situation. I'll keep watch in the future, though. Saskoiler (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Giants2008[edit]

Done (both the link and "Hall of Fame"... it is the same in Canadian media from what I can tell) - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Done - The current placement (inside the closing parenthesis) follows MOS:PUNCTFOOT, which says "Exceptions: ... where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done (partly) - Due to the length of the article, I've tried to compromise by including the first name only on the first instance per section. So, Eugenie Bouchard is mentioned (by full name) in the Philanthropy section. Then, she is mentioned by full name again in the Hopman Cup section the first time, and then by surname after that within that section. I tried to find something about this in the MOS, but couldn't locate anything. (If I've missed something, please let me know.) I think this is a reasonable compromise now. Okay? Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From MOS:LASTNAME: "After the initial mention of any name, the person should generally be referred to by surname only". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Thanks for the link. - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thank you for the suggestions and feedback. I've addressed all of your comments above. Please let me know if you have any further feedback for this article. - Saskoiler (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2016: Remove "the" before "Milos Raonic Tennis", since that isn't in the quote from the source and is messing up the prose.
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Olympics: It looks like "player" is missing in the middle of "Japanese Tatsuma Ito". Or you could just say "Japan's".
Done - As a side note, tennis commentators (and media) often use phrasing like "Japanese Tatsuma Ito" or "Swiss Roger Federer". I must have lapsed into this habit, even though I agree that style of phrasing does not belong in this article. Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raonic and Pospisil: Contraction should be fixed in "they've played each other in two ATP World Tour matches".
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - @Giants2008: Thanks again. I have addressed this set of suggestions. - Saskoiler (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This looks like a pretty good model of what a tennis player article should look like. My main piece of advice is to make sure you control the size of the article in the future, because it has the potential to become bloated as Raonic's career progresses. However, that is merely something to consider for the future and isn't something that I would withhold support over. Best of luck with the rest of the FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008: Thanks for all your constructive feedback, your FAC support, and for your kind compliment. Regarding the article size: [1] If his career ended now, I think the various sections are appropriately weighted. [2] In the future, I would expect that organic editing will probably reduce the first decade of his career with the benefit of hindsight. For example, as part of this year's editing, the earliest years of his career (2007-2010) have been trimmed by over half. Middle years (2011-2012) were cut as well. Much of the expansion (from this January 30 version) was adding more encyclopedic content to "other" sections like "early and personal life", and in significantly expanding references. - Saskoiler (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I don't have a strong preference either way since all of these citations are repeated down in the body of the article. However, I was previously directed to WP:LEADCITE which says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. ... The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." So, based on that, I was advised to add citations on the quotations (in the 2nd paragraph) and on the likely-to-be-challenged "best serve among his contemporaries" (in the 4th paragraph). - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done (parentheses) - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done (scholarships). The singular "scholarship" was intentional. Since he had already chosen U of Virginia, I assume that all other scholarships had already been turned down, and so he was only turning down the U of V one at this late date. However, it reads just as well with the plural "scholarships"... meaning he turned all of them down and went pro. Plus, the plural works better with the following sentence. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - That's a great catch! - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I originally put that in because Raonic has used that phrase on more than one occasion. But, on further consideration, I think many (most?) competitive athletes say that, so I agree that it doesn't really add anything. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done (just a typo) - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've cut all but one of the quotes, which I think is necessary as a counter-balance to the "hothead" quote. I think there's better flow now. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've added the "super cool and different" quote (by Williams), and removed mention of Azarenka and Wozniacki. I think keeping it in helps to underline why the sleeve attracted attention from fans and commentators too. (I've added "Serena" to make it clear now) - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done (Well, I didn't change anything. The sentence already begins with ""Between 2011 and 2015") - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done I was influenced too heavily by several other player articles (e.g. Federer, Djokovic, Wawrinka) that mention finals, semifinals, and even quarterfinals. However, after reconsidering, it's not significant enough to warrant mention in the "Records" section, particularly because Stefan Edberg reached 5 consecutive Japan Open finals, winning 4 of them. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- These are all fairly minor points, and I expect to support once they're taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for your feedback. You've got a keen eye to pick up on some very subtle copyedit items. I have addressed all of your comments above, and I think this has improved the article, particularly with a few very "surgical" deletions of a few words/phrases/sentences. Please let me know if you have any additional comments. - Saskoiler (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything looks good now. This is a solid article. (And thank you for the compliment!) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- Hi Saskoiler, would this be your first FAC nom? If so, a belated welcome to the process! It looks like we still need the following checks:

Let's wait for confirmation from Starship.paint either way on the spotcheck question, and perhaps Mike could look at source formatting, but for the image review you can post a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Yes, this is my first FAC nomination. Lots of work, but I've learned a great deal going through the process. I have put the image review request in as suggested. Should I contact Starship.paint and/or Mike Christie, or have you done so already? Let me know if there is anything else I should be doing. - Saskoiler (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I pinged them above, so let's just hang loose for now. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, I'll give it a shot, though I haven't done a source formatting review before, mainly because I think I have a poor eye for catching that sort of error. If Starship.paint hasn't done a spotcheck I'll be happy to do that too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some checking earlier in my review, but I will do another spotcheck in the next 24 hours hopefully. starship.paint ~ KO 13:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks to the kind assistance of Starship.paint (scroll way up), Mike_Christie (below), and GermanJoe (below), the three checks you requested have been completed. Let me know if you require any further action. - Saskoiler (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting.

This difference results when some citations have an author (which then displays with parentheses, e.g. Smith, Mary (January 1, 2010). "Article title...". Retrieved July 4, 2016.) and some citations do not have an author (which then displays without parentheses, e.g. "Article title..." January 1, 2010. Retrieved July 4, 2016). This formatting difference comes straight from the various cite templates. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References 8 and 255 in the Footnotes section both refer to the "Tennis Canada..." entry in the Sources section, which does have a retrieval date (May 28, 2016). (The PDF is very long, and this was done so that individual references can carry page numbers, while keeping just a single entry for the source itself.) - Saskoiler (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I fixed 174 and a couple others with date problems. I also added the Template:Use mdy dates to help ensure consistency going forward. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for agreeing to take on this one additional review. Much appreciated. I have addressed your feedback above. Let me know if you have any further concerns. - Saskoiler (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to find that cite web changes the date format in that way, but since it's all within a single cite template I don't think I can complain. I see you added the retrieval date for 174; your answer on the others is fine. Ian, I'm not really a source formatting expert, but Saskoiler is correct that the behaviour I noticed is generated within cite web, and is not due to inconsistent citation template usage. I think that's OK but I wanted to be sure you were aware of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK[edit]

@GermanJoe: Thanks for taking the time to complete the image check. I appreciate it. I don't think the caption was needed on the infobox image either. - Saskoiler (talk) 03:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More