Welcome to the assessment department of the Tennis WikiProject. This department was made to assess and grade the quality and importance of articles related to tennis. The main purpose of the Assessment Department is to recognise excellent articles and to identify articles that might need more work or could be improvement.

Contents 1 Frequently Asked Questions 2 Instructions 2.1 Quality Scale 2.2 Importance Scale 2.3 Assessment Requests 2.3.1 2009 2.3.2 2008

[edit] Frequently Asked Questions

How can I get an article rated?

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of the Tennis WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article. Please note that the FA class needs to be assessed by the community, and need consensus for promotion.

Someone put a {{WP-Tennis}} template on an article, but it's not a Tennis-related article. What should I do?

Feel free to remove the template, if it is improperly placed.

[edit] Instructions

The assessment of an article is made with the class and importance perimeters, with the {{WP-Tennis}} banner. It is generated like this.
{{WP-Tennis|importance=????|class=????}}

[edit] Quality Scale

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	L'incoronazione di Poppea (as of December 2009)
A	The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Shortcuts: WP:ACLASS WP:A? Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Films).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer review may help.	Cologne War (as of October 2009)
GA	The article has attained good article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.	Typhoon Elsie (1989) (as of November 2009)
B	The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.	A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	KV55 (as of November 2009)
C	The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.	Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.	Architecture of Denmark (as of November 2009)
Start	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.	Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.	Geodia gibberosa (as of July 2009)
FL	The article has attained featured list status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions and alternative (alt) text if necessary. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available.	Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) (as of February 2009)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.	There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.	Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.	List of aikidoka (as of June 2007)

[edit] Importance Scale

Article importance grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	Articles strictly related to the game: rules of the game, associations. The Grand Slam tournaments as well as the Tennis Masters Cup.	Tennis Women's Tennis Association Australian Open
High	Former or current world number ones, Grand Slam tournament winners, ATP Masters Series tournaments, WTA Tier I Series tournaments.	Andre Agassi 2008 ATP Tour Canada Masters
Mid	Former or current Top 20 players, International and International Series Gold category tournaments.	Alicia Molik 2005 French Open SAP Open
Low	Any other Tennis-related articles. Futures and ATP Challenger Series tournaments.	Maret Ani 2005 French Open - Men's Singles Sporting Challenger
NA	Any Tennis-related templates, categories, disambiguation pages and images.	Template:Draw key Category:Tennis 1977 Australian Open

[edit] Assessment Requests

[edit] 2009

June

• Hi ... can someone not involved with the editing of his article pls rate importance of he Dudi Sela article? He just played through the 4th round at Wimbledon, and his rating increased to 30. Also played for Israel in Davis Cup against Russia. He is not yet rated for importance for tennis. Also, I believe that the article is much better than the old C rating at this point. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

May

• Anne Keothavong, Katie O'Brien, Melanie South, Elena Baltacha, Georgie Stoop, Emily Webley-Smith, Naomi Cavaday, Naomi Broady, Anna Smith, Tara Moore - I completely understand that a few of these articles may not be of high importance but nevertheless I would appreciate suggestions on how to improve their quality.

• I rated Steve Denton as a high-importance article. He won the 1982 U.S. Open doubles title, and I assumed that the importance assessments are based on doubles as well as singles titles. He also held the world record for fastest serve for a long time. I feel as though this qualifies him for high importance, but was hoping to get a second opinion.

April

• AAMI Classic - I've been working on this in March, and while the subject is not extremely important, I think the article is worth at least a C-class, or a B-class tag.

• Pablo Cuevas - Article has been expanded. I set in discussion page the article as Start and Mid, but I wonder if it should be High instead of Mid (Roland Garros winner). --Scuac (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Added tag to Andy Murray page. Set quality as B and importance as high. It's well written and he is obviously a highly important figure in mens tennis.

• Wayne Odesnik - Article has been expanded. --Ethelh (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

March

• Williams Sisters rivalry - Article has been expanded from stubby beginning, and I was hoping to get feedback from the Tennis community. Alonsornunez (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Aleksandra Wozniak - Article has been expanded from stub beginning.--Ethelh (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2008

November

• Julien Sales-Halbergsen - I came across this page and I'm not convinced it's legitimate.

• Jo-Wilfried Tsonga should have Mid importance now. 94.189.204.147 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

• Pilot Pen Tennis - I've worked a little on the history section, and I'd like to know where the article stands now, quality-wise. --Oxford St. (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done See talk page. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

• 2008 Wimbledon Championships, most recent Grand Slam tournament. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

• Rafael Osuna Spent some time improving this article, and I think it's come a long way, though it needs someone to sift through back issues of Sports Illustrated (et al.) and add a dozen more refs. Goldenband (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ana Ivanovic should at least have a High importance class now instead of Mid, as the subject is now both World No.1 and a Grand Slam winner. Y Done Spenalzo (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

• Mohammed al Ghareeb Only low importance, to be sure, but I'm hoping for Start-Class (or maybe even B?). Goldenband (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done Start, well sourced but too short for "B". Some minor pov issues in the first paragraph, but otherwise a good article. BanRay 11:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

• 2008 Australian Open, the Australian Open tournament Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Y Done BanRay 11:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

December 2007

• Erik Van Dillen, new article recently rescued from speedy deletion
• Official (Tennis), noticed a sort of "gap" in coverage of this topic, so I wrote an article. Please critique--Greenguy1090 (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Some more requests; most of these tennis players have been ranked in the top 5:

• Herbert Flam, U.S. tennis player, 2-time USTA boys 18s singles champion, highest world ranking # 5
• Brad Gilbert, U.S. tennis player, highest world ranking # 4
• Paul Goldstein, U.S. tennis player, USTA boys 16s & 2-time 18s singles champion
• Brian Gottfried, U.S tennis player, USTA boys 12s & 2-time 18s singles champion, highest world ranking # 3
• Jim Grabb, U.S. tennis player, highest world doubles ranking # 1
• Julie Heldman, U.S. tennis player, US girls 15s & 18s singles champion, highest world ranking # 5
• Ilana Kloss, South African tennis player, highest world doubles ranking # 1
• Aaron Krickstein, U.S. tennis player, USTA boys 16s & 18s singles champion, highest world ranking # 6
• Tom Okker, Dutch tennis player, highest world ranking # 3 in singles, and # 1 in doubles
• Dick Savitt, U.S. tennis player, highest world ranking # 2
• Roger Federer, Switzerland tennis player, highest world ranking #1

Harold Solomon, U.S. tennis player, US boys 18s singles champion, highest world ranking # 5 --Epeefleche 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Y Done BanRay 11:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

July 2007

• Can someone assess Jesse Levine and Audra Cohen, if possible. Tx.--Epeefleche 05:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Could The Championships, Wimbledon get rated please? Cheers --81.179.123.35 12:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

I's like to see Mark Keil get assessed. Danny McCluskey 13:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessed. Comments on talk. --Dark Falls ^talk 06:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

March 2007

Tennis (B class/Top importance). Let's get this article to FA status! I don't know when it was assessed last, so it would be good to get some notes and see where we currently stand. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Roger Federer (b/Top) I have for awhile wanted to get this to at least GA class. I am not sure exactly how many people noticed the previous request, as there was only one very short response, so I would, like Spyder_Monkey, also like to see where it stands. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Been approved a lot since I read it last. Has plenty of citations and reliable info, but lacks the quality of an FA. Maybe try it out for GA? --Dark Falls ^talk 06:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)