Jump to content

Talk:Alexander Zverev

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Alexander Zverev Jr.)
Former good articleAlexander Zverev was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2019Good article nomineeListed
February 26, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Rough section

[edit]

I'm having trouble understanding the section, "Junior Career". Specifically: "Zverev played his first junior match in January 2011 at the age of 13..." I think it means, he played his first official match, i.e., first match sanctioned by an international tennis governing organization? Is this the same event as described two sentences later as "He entered his first event on the International Tennis Federation (ITF) junior circuit in early 2011 when he was 13" I think it must be so, therefore we should delete the first sentence and keep the more precise third sentence. SCampobello (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Win-Loss percentages not showing automatically

[edit]

For some reason, need to add manually the Win-Loss percentages in the Infobox, is there a reason it is not working automatically in all profiles? Sashona (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

  • This article has doubled in size since its GA promotion. At over 10,000 words, WP:TOOBIG recommends that the text be reduced or spun out. Considering the text that has been added to the article, I recommend that the text be reduced.
  • Zoo Tennis is used a lot as a source, and appears to be a blogspot website. Why is this a reliable source?
  • "Controversies" sections may cause NPOV problems, as there is no "Accomplishments" section or anything similar. I recommend that this section be incorporated into the person's biography.
  • Much of the information in "2024: French Open final, sixth Masters title, 450th career win" is presented in short paragraphs, making it appear as a list. This should probably be merged together and reduced.

Is anyone interested in addressing the above concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Delisted. Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zoo Tennis is used a lot as a source, and appears to be a blogspot website. I do not think it is a reliable source. There are some uncited statements, some of which have been tagged with citation needed templates since July 2024. This article has doubled in size since its GA promotion, and I do not think it is concise anymore. "Controversies" sections may cause NPOV problems, as there is no "Accomplishments" section or anything similar. I recommend that this section be incorporated into the person's biography. Much of the latter paragraphs in "2024: French Open final, sixth Masters title, 450th career win" are short one-or-two-sentence paragraphs, making it appear as a list and negatively impacting the article's layout. These should probably be merged together and reduced. The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.