Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1877 Wimbledon Championship/archive1

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) 11:02, 13 June 2015 [1].

---

1877 Wimbledon Championship

Nominator(s): Wolbo (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first Wimbledon tennis tournament, held in 1877, and as such has great historical significance within the sport of tennis. The prize money for the inaugural Wimbledon was ever so slightly less than this year's £26.75m. The article achieved GA status in June 2013 and since then has been significantly improved. It is comprehensive regarding information that can be found in reliable sources. A peer review was recently concluded and the constructive feedback (thanks to Brianboulton and Resolute) was implemented. As an aside, WP Tennis has more than 20,000 articles but does not yet have a single FA (apart from two FAs for tennis video games), it would be great if this could become the first one. Hopefully it will result in a TFA during the men's final on 12 July. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated.--Wolbo (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Wimbledon 1877.jpg The referenced book is from 2001. To claim PD-1923, we need to show that the image was actually published before 1923 (not just that it was created before then). Also, once that's dealt with, the template {{PD-anon-1923}} would probably be simplest for the license.

From Todd, Tom (1979). The Tennis Players : from Pagan Rites to Strawberries and Cream (p. 95) it is known that the image was sketched during the event by an artist of the Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News but I have no access to the magazine edition in which it was published. Have added the {{PD-anon-1923}} template.

• That's not proof of publication, however; it is simply proof of creation. Publication is when it was made available to the public. If it is anonymous and first published in 1979, it's almost certainly copyrighted in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I found a source on Amazon which is from the July 14, 1877 edition of Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News but it is a slightly different version than the one used in the article and published in Todd (1979) and Barrett (2001). Can I upload it to File:Wimbledon 1877.jpg as a replacement (with modified source info) or does it need to be a new Commons image? --Wolbo (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• That's sufficient proof. Yeah, if you want to upload that version (I can see why; it's a bit more detailed), feel free to overwrite the one on Commons. Either way we should note this pre-1923 printing, even though our immediate source may be different. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ultimately decided against overwriting the existing version and uploaded it as a separate image to commons. Replaced the image in the article. --Wolbo (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Lawn Tennis Court 1874.jpg - If Wingfield's authorship (or his attribution as the author) is made by the source (or other sources), I'd tag this {{PD-old-100}}; this indicates that the image is not only PD in both the US and the European Union, but also in countries such as Mexico and Columbia.

Done. The image was published in Wingfield's original rules booklet of tennis in 1874, the image has no further attribution.--Wolbo (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:1876 Racket.jpg - What page number was this image found on (the source is a 500+ page book; people shouldn't have to go through the whole thing to find the image)? If it didn't have a page number, then the location of the plate. Also, it would be better if full bibliographic information (available here) could be provided for the source as well.

Done. --Wolbo (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Henry jones.jpg - Proof of pre-1923 publication? Also, if that can be found, {{PD-anon-1923}} would work best; the current template doesn't apply to Britain (which is PD-70 for anonymous works) and many other countries.

Haven't found proof yet, still searching.--Wolbo (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Although it is likely that this image was published pre-1923 I have not been able to find proof of a pre-1923 publication and have therefore removed the image.--Wolbo (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Found another image of Henry Jones (via BNP) published on 4 March 1899 in The Graphic. Added it with {{PD-anon-1923}}.--Wolbo (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I see that you reverted my moving his image to the left. That was based on WP:IMAGELOCATION, which recommends that images face into the text. If you still don't like it, please at least re-remove the extraneous comma after his name. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the rationale behind the image move but, despite WP:IMAGELOCATION, it just did not look right on the left side. I prefer not to place an image on the left side directly below a section header and in this case next to bullet points. The article in The Graphic mentioned H.H. Hay Cameron as the photographer, which I believe must be Henry Herschel Hay Cameron (1851–1911) so that info has been added to the image and the permission tag changed to {{PD-1923}}. Is that correct?--Wolbo (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since The Graphic was a British publication, the image would need something that applies to both Britain and the US. Since Cameron died in 1911, {{PD-100}} works best. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Wimbledon Championship 1877 Draw.jpg - Should use {{PD-anon-1923}}; the current template doesn't apply to the source country, the UK

Done. --Wolbo (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• File:Spencer gore.jpg - Proof of pre-1923 publication? Also, if that can be found, {{PD-anon-1923}} would work best; it's much simpler.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Haven't found proof yet, still searching.--Wolbo (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, have replaced the image, can you check it?. I have it from Todd, Tom (1979) The Tennis Players : from Pagan Rites to Strawberries and Cream where it is described as 'A photograph of S.W. Gore, the first champion, mounted on a card which he has signed', so at least it was in circulation before his death on 19 April 1906.--Wolbo (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, that's good. Image are fine now. Hopefully I'll have time to continue with a prose review today or tomorrow. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

Comments: I've read to the end of background so far, and done some light copyediting. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead:

• This article used British spelling, but we have "standardized" in the lead, and the more common British spelling of "standardised" in the main body.

Done. I understand both forms are acceptable in British English but as "standardised" is more common that is now used.--Wolbo (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• "It was the world's first official lawn tennis tournament, and the first of what was later to be called a Grand Slam tournament or "Major".": I'm not a huge fan of this sentence. Maybe something like "It was the world's first official lawn tennis tournament, and was later recognised as the first Grand Slam tournament or "Major"."?

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• On this point, also made in the main body, this tournament would not have been called or recognised as a major in 1877, or presumably for some time after. No-one taking part would have thought of it in this way, so it is better to go for the "later recognised" form, or similar. But it does beg two questions: How prestigious was it for those taking part (and don't think we fully address this later), and when was it later called a "grand slam"? (Although we're drifting away from the main topic, it may be worth a note saying when the concept of a Grand Slam event first took off.)

The first edition was obviously not yet seen as prestigious, see also Gore's remarks. At that point it might just have become another fad like croquet or rinking. It was quickly seen as the most important and prestigious tournament, in the first decade or so together with the Irish Championships. Wimbledon was designated as an official World (Grass) Championship by the International Lawn Tennis Federation (ILTF) in 1913, together with the World Hard Court Championships and World Covered Court Championships. This lasted until 1923 when it became an 'Official Championship' (together with the championships of France, USA and Australia) to allow the USA, whose championship was also played on grass, to join the ILTF. The term Grand Slam was not an official designation and was first used by the press in 1933 (see 1). This info is probably too tangential to include in the main article but I will add it to a note or create a new note.--Wolbo (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That would cover it nicely. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note added.--Wolbo (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I also noticed on this point that there is an error in the current Note i: "There is a record of a tournament held in August 1976": Presumably this should be 1876?

Corrected. Well spotted.--Wolbo (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• "A set of rules was drawn up for the tournament, derived from the first standardized rules of tennis that had been issued in May 1875 by the Marylebone Cricket Club.": Maybe clarify here why a cricket club is writing tennis rules.

Done. Added ", the governing body for rackets and real tennis.". Also changed "rules of tennis that had been issued in May 1875" to "rules of tennis issued in May 1875".--Wolbo (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• "A Gentlemen's Singles event was the only competition held in the championship, and was contested on grass courts by 22 competitors who each paid a one guinea entrance fee.": What about the slightly neater "The Gentlemen's Singles, the only event the championship, was contested on grass courts by 22 competitors who each paid one guinea to enter."(Also avoids the later repetition of entrance fee)

That does indeed read a bit smoother. With a slight alteration it has been rephrased to "The Gentlemen's Singles competition, the only event of the championship, was contested on grass courts by 22 players who each paid one guinea to participate."--Wolbo (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Background:

• "played by the populace.[5][6] The popularity": Can we avoid this populace...popularity tongue twister?

Done. Changed 'popularity' to 'prominence'.--Wolbo (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• "and the service had to bounce beyond the service line instead of in front of it": "instead" implies that previous games followed the "in front" rule. Maybe rephrase as "beyond the service line, in contrast to the modern game in which the ball must land in front."

Changed to "and the service had to bounce beyond the service line." --Wolbo (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• "to capitalise on the upcoming interest in this new sport": upcoming sounds odd here.

Not sure what the 'oddness' is, can you elaborate? --Wolbo (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming suggests that they knew it was going to become popular before that happened. What about "growing interest"?

Done.--Wolbo (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• "a dozen new club members were added": Were added sounds like they had little choice in the matter. "Joined"?

No proof this was in any way involuntary. Updated.--Wolbo (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• "On 3 March 1875 the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) convened a meeting at its Lord's Cricket Ground to test the various versions of lawn tennis that had been developed with the aim to standardise its rules.": As above, maybe clarify why they were involved. We have the later information "the MCC, in its capacity as the governing body for rackets and real tennis", which would be better at the beginning here.

This part was made slightly more concise as a result of the peer review, I have moved the segment ", in its capacity as the governing body for rackets and real tennis, " to the beginning of the paragraph to clarify the involvement of the MCC.--Wolbo (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• "as well as the rackets method of scoring in which each game consisted of 15 points": Ambiguous. Does this mean they scored in multiples of 15, or the score went to 15, or it was the best of 15...? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Rephrased to "rackets method of scoring in which the player who first scores 15 points wins the game".--Wolbo (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Tournament:

• "and made himself responsible for the remaining amount.": We do not specify what amount was remaining; as it reads now, it looks like the other 20 people covered the costs.

Have rephrased the sentence to "Henry Jones convinced 20 members and friends of the club to guarantee a part of the tournament's financial requirement and made himself responsible for the remaining amount." It is not known what the remaining amount was.--Wolbo (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why do we split the "first announcement" into two separate quotes?

Converted the second blockquote to a paraphrase.--Wolbo (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• On a related note, for me personally, I think there are a few too many quotes like this from rules, announcements, etc. I prefer a paraphrase, but that is just me. (I don't expect anything doing about this, and it does not affect my support)

See above.--Wolbo (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Visitors were informed that those arriving by horse and carriage should use the entrance at Worple Road while those who planned to come by foot could best use the railway path.": Given that the people being told this could not have been visitors yet, perhaps "Potential visitors were informed"? I also think "could best use" is a little awkward. Maybe just "should use"?

Done. Changed to 'Potential visitors' and 'were advised to use'.--Wolbo (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• The rules are given in something like the present tense. I'm not sure if this is correct unless we are quoting directly. But I really don't know here, and maybe an MoS expert could clarify?

Brianboulton, can you perhaps comment on this? --Wolbo (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• The rules as given are perhaps a little confusing in terms of attribution. One rule has a reference, the others don't. What is the attribution for the other rules? At the very least, the last rule should have a reference after it.

Have moved the reference for the individual rule to the beginning of the list and added a reference. Also expanded the last rule with info on the foot-fault.--Wolbo (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Again on the scoring, "The real tennis method of scoring by fifteens will be adopted": Does this mean that they used the modern tennis scoring system of 15, 30, 40? Or a different one? Modern readers may assume this, so a little clarity is needed one way or another.

Yes, it means the tennis scoring system as we still use today. Have added ' (15, 30, 40)' to clarify this.--Wolbo (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• "while the rackets used were an adaptation of those used in real tennis, with a small and slightly lopsided head": Why is real tennis in italics? (Maybe I'm missing something!)

My thinking was that putting it in italics could prevent readers from misinterpreting 'real' as an adjective instead of part of a noun. Another option to avoid possible confusion would be to wikilink it but that has already been done several times in the article. --Wolbo (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Italics are not really the best way of doing that, and probably break the MoS somewhere! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Have removed the italics.--Wolbo (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• "The ball-boys kept the tennis balls in canvas 'wells'": Why do we have quotation marks? Perhaps something like bag would be better, but if we really need quotation marks, I think they need to be doubled.

Removed quotation marks.--Wolbo (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "The quarterfinals were played on Wednesday, 11 July for an increasing number of spectators.": Does this mean that spectator numbers increased during the quarter final, or numbers were up compared to the previous matches?

The spectator numbers probably did increase during the match but what is meant is compared to the previous matches. The sentence has been updated to clarify this.--Wolbo (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• "When the semifinal stage had concluded on Thursday, 12 July play was suspended until next Monday, 16 July due to the Eton v Harrow cricket match that was played at Lord's Cricket Ground on Friday and Saturday.": I'm assuming this was because it would be a rival attraction for spectators, as it was an incredibly popular match, but this is not clear to modern readers who are not 19th century cricket fanatics, so maybe clarify the reason.

Good point, have rephrased the sentence to clarify, it now reads: "play was suspended until next Monday, 16 July to avoid a clash with the popular annual Eton v Harrow cricket match...".--Wolbo (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've done some minor copy-editing, which you may freely revert if I've messed up or you don't like any of it. To conclude later, but looking good. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

How are we doing with this now? I don't want to get onto the last section until everything else has been addressed or responded to. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarastro1, thanks for your comments / suggestions and for taking the time to review the article. I believe all your points have now been addressed or at least responded to.--Wolbo (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Support: I'm happy with the changes made here, and have just two final comments. I've done some minor copy-editing, but feel more than happy to support this article now. Nice work. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!. Your comments have helped to further improve the article.--Wolbo (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• "Gore indicated that the [real] tennis players had the tendency to play shots from corner to corner over the middle of the net and did so at such a height that made volleying easy.": Why is "real" in brackets, unless this is a direct quote?

Not a direct quote so removed the brackets.--Wolbo (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• "These rules were published jointly by the AEC&LTC and the MCC which gave the AEC&LTC an official rule-making authority and in effect retroactively sanctioned its 1877 rules.": Is retroactively the right word here? I think retrospectively would be better. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Brianboulton

I think that before submitting detailed comments, I'll wait until Sarastro has worked his way through. For the moment, though, I'll just point out that the first paragraph of the Background begins "It is believed..." This is not encyclopaedically acceptable. If this theory of the origins of tennis is voiced by your source Gillmeister, you should attribute it to him, e.g. "A theory suggested by the cultural historian Heiner Gillmeister is that the origins of tennis lie..." or some such wording. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, there is a consensus in reliable sources that tennis originated in France, Gillmeister is a bit more precise by placing it in northern France. Have rephrased the sentence accordingly, added two sources and a note regarding Gillmeister's research.--Wolbo (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Fine. Have you finished dealing with Sarastro's comments? I'll add further comments when you have; meanwhile, the article is looking in encouragingly good shape. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, yes, all points have been addressed.--Wolbo (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Is Sarastro happy with your responses? Has he dealt with the final section yet? Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments

SupportLeaning to support: I have made a number of mostly minor prose adjustments/corrections, but I believe there is a little more work to be done. A few points:

• Why is Gore only linked and properly introduced on his fifth or sixth mention in the main text?

Not sure, probably just a consequence of how the article was developed and expanded. Link and introduction have been moved to the first instance of his name in the 'Play' section.--Wolbo (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Why does Marshall become "William Marshall" again rather than sticking to the surname?

That was done to disamb between "William Marshall" and "Julian Marshall" who both played in the tournament.--Wolbo (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Sentences or phrases that tell us nothing shouldn't really be in the article. A couple of examples: "It is not known which player hit the first ball..."; and "A Centre Court did not exist during the first four years of the championship, and the match was in all likelihood played on Court 1 in front of the pavilion". Neither of these satements tell us anything, and could profitably be removed. There could be others of a similar negative nature.

Have removed the first one and turned the second one into a footnote.--Wolbo (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since this is a British tournament (quintessentially so), the terms "quarter-final" and "semi-final" should be hyphenated in accordance with BritEng usage.

Done. Was not aware that the hyphen is needed for British English.--Wolbo (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

On that issue should "The net will be lowered to 3 feet and 3 inches (0.99 m) in the center." be changed to "The net will be lowered to 3 feet and 3 inches (0.99 m) in the centre."?--Wolbo (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I missed that one - yes, it should. Brianboulton (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have watched this article from its relatively early review stages, and it has developed well. I look forward to upgrading to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Good to go now, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thanks for your helpful comments and earlier help at the peer review.--Wolbo (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• Per WP:BOLDTITLE, we shouldn't link Wimbledon Championship in the bolded text.

Done. --Wolbo (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps link lawn tennis because the term doesn't have much common currency now?

Not sure, such a link would redirect to the tennis article. Would that not confuse?--Wolbo (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not particularly; "lawn tennis" is mentioned in bold in the "tennis" article, and explained there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• A set of rules was drawn up for the tournament, derived from the first standardised rules of tennis issued in May 1875 by the Marylebone Cricket Club, the governing body for rackets and real tennis. - Is this too much detail for the lead? I'd just go "A set of rules was drawn up for the tournament, derived from the first standardised rules of tennis issued by the Marylebone Cricket Club in May 1875"

I'm fine with removing "the governing body for rackets and real tennis" from the lede as the necessary explanation can be found in the body text.--Wolbo (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Monday, 9 July 1877, and the final, delayed for three days by rain, was played on Thursday, 19 July, - Having the days strikes me as too much detail, particularly for the lead. I could have sworn there was something in the MOS that was against it, but I can't find it.

I prefer to keep them in the body text as they give the readers a better feel for the progress of the tournament in time. I have removed them from the lede.--Wolbo (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• The winner's prize money was 12 guineas, and he received a silver challenge cup, valued at 25 guineas, donated by the sports magazine The Field. - Perhaps "The winner received 12 guineas in prize money and a silver challenge cup, valued at 25 guineas, donated by the sports magazine The Field."

That's indeed a bit more fluent. Rephrased.--Wolbo (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• The service was made from a single side in a lozenge shaped box situated in the middle of the court and the service - could we avoid repeating "Service"?

Yes, we could. Done.--Wolbo (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• London and South Western Railway - Why the italics?

Removed.--Wolbo (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• to introduce lawn tennis (and badminton) - why include badminton? Especially since the remainder of your sentence is "capitalise on the growing interest in this new sport"

Reference to badminton removed.--Wolbo (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• were handed over to lawn tennis to address the increase in new tennis members. - repetition of tennis

Fixed, changed to "were handed over to lawn tennis to address the increase in new members." --Wolbo (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• On 3 March 1875 the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), in its capacity as the governing body for rackets and real tennis, convened a meeting at Lord's Cricket Ground to test the various versions of lawn tennis that had been developed with the aim to standardise the game's rules - perhaps this should be split

Made it more concise by removing "that had been developed", think it reads ok now.--Wolbo (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why are the names of different court styles italicized?

You mean Sphairistikè, Germains Lawn Tennis and Pelota?--Wolbo (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Right. WP:ITALICS doesn't deal with such a case, so I'm wondering if it's standard in tennis writing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sphairistikè and Pelota are in italics as they are foreign names, per MOS:FOREIGN, the same reason jeu de paume and longue paume are in italics. Germains Lawn Tennis is not a foreign name so its italics have been removed.--Wolbo (talk) 00:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• On 2 June 1877, at the suggestion of the club secretary and founding member John H. Walsh, the club committee - which club? Prince Club? MCC? Those were the two in the last paragraph

Clarified. --Wolbo (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Standardize whether or not you convert measurements

Yes, conversions should be used consistently. Have added two which were missing. Any others? --Wolbo (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• All matches during the tournament were played as best-of-five sets - So what does it mean by The first player to win six games wins the set?

That is standard tennis terminology. Tennis scoring is made up of the cascading units: point < game < set < match. If you win six games (with a difference of two) you win a set. A match is won either by winning two sets (best-of-three) or three sets (best-of-five).--Wolbo (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• while the rackets used were an adaptation of those used in real tennis, with a small and slightly lopsided head. - Are these the racquets the players brought themselves?

Yes.--Wolbo (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• The ball-boys kept the tennis balls in canvas wells and during the tournament 180 balls were used - "And" doesn't work with me here.

Rephrased.--Wolbo (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• (6 x 4 inches) - Is this the size of the card before or after it was folded?

After, clarified.--Wolbo (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Marshall won the toss and elected to serve first and was immediately broken by Gore. - too many ands

Fixed.--Wolbo (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• The tournament made a profit of £10. - Why is this its own paragraph?

Mainly because it doesn't fit well with the preceding paragraphs. Have now moved the sentence to a more logical location (Aftermath) where it is part of a paragraph.--Wolbo (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Heathcote said that Gore was the best player of the year and had a varied service with a lot of twist on it. He stated that Gore was a player with an aptitude for many games and had a long reach and a strong and flexible wrist. - structure is repetitive.

Rephrased the second sentence to "Gore, according to Heathcote, was a player with ...". Better? --Wolbo (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Standardize: emdash or endash

Have changed one emdash into an endash. There is another instance of emdash, not done by me, and I believe its usage is correct per Dash (See: Parentheses-like use).--Wolbo (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• The WP:DASH portion of MOS says that either or should be used ("either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes consistently in an article") so that one should also be a spaced endash. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's now all endash.--Wolbo (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Did the club get their pony roller?

The money was not for the purchase of a new pony roller but for the repair of the existing one. There is no specific mention in sources of it being repaired but a sentence that it remained in use has been added (with reference).--Wolbo (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Right; was missing a word. Looks good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• You're not citing Barrett, John (2010). The Original Rules of Tennis.

I have that book(let) and it would indeed have been a logical source. I will check to see if it can be used but the article already seems sufficiently referenced as it is so it may not be needed (anymore).--Wolbo (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Lots of duplicate links. Keep an eye out for them.

I tend to be lenient on the amount of links and don't mind a repeat link if they are far enough apart but this should be no more than one per H1 section.--Wolbo (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Also, random comment: standardize whether or not you capitalize the titles of books in the references. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

They should all be in sentence case.--Wolbo (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Correction, that should be title case.--Wolbo (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, I believe all your comments have now been addressed or at least answered. Let me know if any need follow-up. Thanks for the review! --Wolbo (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd still recommend trimming some duplicate links; we've got the link to the 1878 competition mere lines from each other, for instance. Also, if Barrett's 2010 booklet isn't cited, you could include it as further reading. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Have removed three further duplicate wikilinks. That should cover it.--Wolbo (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, have added a couple citations using Barrett (2010).--Wolbo (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Good work! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Crisco 1492, thanks! --Wolbo (talk) 15:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources review

• Ref 1: requires retrieval date
• Ref 9: as you are citing the Telegraph website, not the printed source, this also requires a retrieval date
• Ref 15: requires retrieval date
• Ref 32: "Sons" should be capitalised
• Ref 53: requires retrieval date
• Ref 59: ditto
• Ref 71: ditto
• Ref 77: year?
• Ref 79: requires retrieval date
• Ref 93: ditto

Otherwise, sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability, and are properly and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, all done. Thanks.--Wolbo (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks: I have checked a large sample of the accessible sources, and found no issues of close paraphrasing. The cited text appears accurately to reflect these sources throughout the sample. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.