Milos Raonic

Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning to nominate it for featured article (FA). It has gone through an extensive overhaul (as documented here) over the past couple months. This included rewrites throughout, condensing of much of the earlier career years, and a cleanup of citations.

I welcome detailed constructive feedback, whether it be related to MoS low-level prose suggestions, or broader structural/content suggestions. I will be happy to discuss and/or address any concerns.

Thanks, Saskoiler (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this peer review at this time. It has been open for over a month. I got some great feedback from Vanamonde93 (thank you!) which I've addressed to the best of my ability, and the discussion has been quiet for over a week. I'm going to take the plunge and nominate for featured article. Saskoiler (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vanamonde93

I'll add some comments here. I am vaguely familiar with Raonic and Tennis, but I haven't edited sports-related articles very much; so feel free to incorporate or ignore my comments, as you see fit. Considering that this is a GA, many comments are likely to be quite minor and/or matters of preference.

Thanks very much for the feedback, and for the copyedits you've already applied. I'll do my best to address each of them. Saskoiler (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I have completed my responses to your suggestions below. Please let me know if you have any further ideas for improving the article. Thanks for the many suggestions. I think the article reads better now with those changes. Saskoiler (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Best of luck with any future nominations. A word of caution; since Raonic is currently an active player, keeping this up-to-date while avoiding undue weight to recent events will be tricky, and you'll have to exercise care in doing that. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor point; first paragraph of the lead, the article says "He reached a career-high world No. 4 singles ranking on May 11, 2015, according to the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP)." I would suggest something like "career high ATP-ranking of No. 4" or something along those lines. The current version is fine, but if I were to be really nitpicky I could read it as the ATP reporting on some other ranking system.
  •  Done I've reworded it to remove the ambiguity about who is doing the ranking. I felt it was important to retain the full "Association of Tennis Professionals" because the acronym ATP is used throughout the article. Saskoiler (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Last parapgraph of lead; "his preferred surface" sounds a trifle odd, because it is implied by the previous half of the sentence. I would leave it out altogether, or move it to say "Hardcourts are considered his preferred surface, because he has won" etc.
  •  Done Agreed, it is odd phrasing. I removed it. (He has expressed the preference for hard courts, but it isn't important to have that in the lead. It is mentioned and cited down in the "Playing style" section.) Saskoiler (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Overlinking: there are a substantial number of duplicate links in the article. I took out a few, but there's many more. I would suggest keeping the first usage of each only, unless the first usage is in the lead, in which case you keep the first two. Just in case you don't know about this, this tool is very helpful; User:Ucucha/duplinks.
  •  Partly done I've removed the majority of the duplicate wikilinks. In addition to the exception you mention for the lead, I chose to also allow a few duplicates down in the lower sections of the article. For example, it seems desirable to allow the "Davis Cup" section to have a wikilink to the Davis Cup article, even though this link is contained further up. Ditto for the "Raonic and Nishikori" section to link to Kei Nishikori, and so on. Saskoiler (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The sentence about the NBA all-star game needs a citation.
  •  Done Saskoiler (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If possible, to the sentence about who he is dating, I would add a "since XYZ" so that if the information becomes dated, it does not become too confusing.
  •  Done Saskoiler (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• What is a "combined junior ranking?" It is not linked, so ideally it should be explained.
  •  Done I've linked it and offered a short explanation. Saskoiler (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "he asked his parents for their blessing" sounds rather archaic; could this perhaps be rephrased?
  •  Done I'm pretty sure there was some other source article that used the word "blessing" in its archaic sense, but this is not the language used in the cited article here, so I've rephrased it. Saskoiler (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "During his second round singles match at Wimbledon, Raonic fell awkwardly, forcing him to retire from the match." sounds like something you would tell a friend. Are details of his injury available?
  •  Done I've tried to bolster this in prose, and also a citation. Saskoiler (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think top-15 is a much used term, and none of the sources give it prominence, either; so I would personally remove that from the section title.
  •  Done Saskoiler (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A few sentences in the 2011 and 2012 sections need citations, including the last sentence of 2012, where the omission is visually obvious.
  •  Done Saskoiler (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Second paragraph of "2014" needs a citation at the end.
  •  Done Saskoiler (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Once again, "top 6" is an odd achievement to list, given that the sources don't give it much weight. Top-ten, top-4, yes; but not 6 or 15. I would remove both of those phrases.
  •  Done Saskoiler (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Olympics" section refers to "longest match by time played," which I'm pretty sure is among olympic matches. This should be checked, and changed if needed.
  •  Done Added the word "Olympic" to clarify sentence. Saskoiler (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Playing style" section; the last sentence of paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 need a citation.
  •  Done Saskoiler (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The "equipment and apparel" section is a little too long for my taste; surely that is slightly undue weight?
  •  Partly done I've trimmed it by cutting the SAP and AVIVA details into the final sentence. I am reluctant to reduce it any further for the following reasons: (a) The length of this section is comparable to other top players (more than some, less than some) (b) The Wilson detail is important, I think, as core tennis fans want to know his playing equipment (c) The New Balance detail deserves mention above all other sponsorship details due to Raonic being the first New Balance tennis player, and also due to the lifelong nature of the contract. (d) The sleeve receives quite a bit of press and mentions in pop culture. It's part of his identity as a player. Saskoiler (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. Like I said, I'm not too familiar with tennis articles, so I'll trust your judgement here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The first paragraph, last sentence of the second paragraph, and last sentence of the third paragraph of "Raonic and the big four" all need references.
  •  Done Saskoiler (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Raonic and Pospisil" section at the moment seems like a little bit of sythesis, because none of the cited sources actually seem to describe such a relationship; all they are doing is discussing specific incidents. So, to give that "rivalry" a section of its own, I would suggest finding a secondary source, or alternatively removing that sub-section.
  •  Done I've reworked this section and added citations to clarify their relationship as contemporaries. I hope this reads better now. Saskoiler (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The "grand slam performance" section does not really need the "grand slam tournaments" link that is currently in the table; it breaks it up, and makes it visually awkward.
  •  Done The link acts as a "subheading" when used in a much larger table (in the Milos Raonic career statistics article), but I agree that it is unnecessary here. Saskoiler (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The second bullet point of the "records" section is not really necessary: it is implied by the text in the table.
  •  Done Removed. Saskoiler (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This is all that I have for now; in general, good job with this article; it reads well, and is thorough. Best of luck with FAC. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]