Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Big Four (tennis)/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted per referencing and lead concerns, plus there have been no "keep" votes after two months other than a reversed closure before this Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I feel this article has a major accessibility issue because of which this article does not meet the GA standard. There is a lot of use of color. Some of these are to bright, but most importantly they are not used in way which make the information accessible for people using assistive technologies. The timeline don't have any legend at all. Moreover, some tables use colors without even telling the able sighted what they intend to convey.Tvx1 13:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Tvx1 on the accessibility issue and lack of legends, and thereby this article does not meet the GA standard. Moreover, I regard this article somehow violating neutrality, particularly WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMO. Coloring has the similar effectiveness as bold fonts. Coloring almost all cells in a table is equal to making every single words written in bold. Thus, readers cannot identify which ones are more and less important. I also feel that decorating with the tennis ball color (bright green) is a sort of strategy to promote visual identity. Same as colorful navboxes and painting French Open with the clay court color. Wikipedia is not the place for promotion.--Mis0s0up (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- While accessibility is something to be strived for in all articles, it is not mentioned at all in the GA criteria, so far as I can see. If you can point to a part of the criteria that addresses accessibility, then the article needs to achieve that. If not, then there is no basis for challenging the GA on those grounds. Neutrality, on the other hand, is something that should be addressed, and the lead section has grown to be way too long, violating the Manual of Style rules for lead sections. In addition, much of the material added since the article became a GA in 2016 is not sourced, running afoul of the verifiability criteria. So there is a fair amount of work that needs to be done for the article to again meet the GA criteria. Tvx1, as the person who initiated this GAR, you are responsible for notifying the relevant people of its existence, so they can get to work on the article: the significant contributors to it, the original GA nominator and reviewer, and the relevant WikiProjects. I hope you'll do so promptly. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I closed this as keep earlier because the colour issue has nothing to do with the GA criteria. I also am not concerned about the lead or article size as it still, just, fits within our acceptable levels. However the refernencng issue was brought to my attention at my talk page and while from my look through I did not see any major gaps (not everything needs a cite per the criteria) I missed the "2017-present: Return of the Big Two" section and there are definitely some statements that need referencing e.g.
becoming the first man to win 20 major titles.
. As such I have reopened it. AIRcorn (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delist: Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, part of the MOS:LEAD GA criteria, lead sections generally shouldn't exceed four paragraphs. This has eight sizable paragraphs, well beyond the MOS guidelines. The guideline notes that
a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway
; I found that to be the case when I read it through just now. So in my opinion this clearly fails to meet the MOS:LEAD part of the GA criteria. I just checked, and the WikiProject has notified back on January 7, after my comments here. Added to the sourcing issues noted above, this does not currently meet the GA criteria. If the issues are addressed, I'm certainly open to changing my conclusion. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)