# Talk:2020 US Open (tennis)

Although they initially said there would be no wheelchair tennis at the 2020 US Open, I thought that the organisers done a U turn. Could someone please clarify this? (Fran Bosh (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC))

After some research, it looks like wheelchair tennis will be happening according to the article I found today. Check out this article which alludes that it will occur after September 9, 2020, https://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/articles/2020-09-03/2020-09-03_photos_mens_action_day_4.html Jurisdicta (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I edited the misinformation before, but it was added again. First off, changes in points should NOT be added until the tournament is finished for the given player. Second, points are being counted as the best of two years for this year, so simple arithmetic will not suffice in computing the rating afterwards. Please refrain from adding incorrect information Rmehtany (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:PCN02WPS, please refrain from continuing to make these edits and deletions of rankings tables and various entries, which go against the standard structuring of Grand Slam Wiki pages, without providing a discussion in which a consensus actually agreed to said changes. Savvy10 (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Savvy10: the consensus was reached at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) U.S. Open. I think we'd both agree that a well-structured, well-ordered article with sourced prose would be preferable to an amalgamation of tables that say the same thing over and over again. The article is currently featured on the main page so I'd appreciate if you'd leave it in its improved state. I'm pinging some of the participants of that discussion here to weigh in if they desire (@Coffeeandcrumbs, The Rambling Man, Amakuru, Bagumba, Destroyeraa,  and Masem:), and, though I do not wish to start an WP:EDITWAR, I'm going to restore it to its previous state due to its current listing at Template:ITN. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The old format was too cluttered and disorganized if I just wanted an overview of what happened in women's singles. It also went against Wikipedia:Summary style, when we already have separate pages for various subtopics but we duplicated it in this main page esp. with bloated tables.—Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Another indication of the previous discorganization is this re-addition of a hatnote at the top of the page to the men's and women's pages. This goes against the guideline WP:RELATED: They are not intended to link to topics that are simply related to each other, or to a specific aspect of a general topic Fyunck(click)'s edit description said: We have many complaints that the main reason readers come to these pages is to find the womens and mens singles draws, and scrolling around to find it was a chore. It was decided at tennis project to put it prominently right at the top It seems that the hatnotes are a band-aid for the subpar page organization where a reader could not even figure out from the TOC where to go i.e. there were too many "Men's Singles" sections that said nothing about the actual matches.—Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
That "standard structuring" might not be an indication of quality. There is only 1 FA event (1877 Wimbledon Championship) and 1 GA (2009 Sony Ericsson Open, though not a Grand Slam), neither of which follow that format.—Bagumba (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't mind at all the structure changes. It is much easier to find things. Removed items (seeds and withdrawals, wild cards) might be in a poor place on the draw article. I'm not sure anything is more important than the actual draw so it should be first and foremost... maybe after the seeding. If every article was like this we probably wouldn't need singles info on the very top. However if this is the only article that gets changed to this style, and all the others have the further info at the top, then this should also have that item. Readers like to see the same style of navigation. It'll take years to do them all but if we can change the 2019 and 2020 articles to this style, all would be good. Tennis Project does not have these article etched in stone as to layout. We we did get was plenty of readers asking us to have both the mens and womens singles draw linked near the top prominently, and I believe the vast majority of readers want just that. They don't want to scroll and search. I did re-add the tables for points and prize money because i think they are vital and easier to read than just the prose version.  Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
We we did get was plenty of readers asking us to have both the mens and womens singles draw linked near the top prominently ...: I get that it was important, because I couldn't navigate and find it before PCN02WPS's changes to the 2020 article.  However, that's not the community norm per the WP:RELATED guideline. And I get regulars resistant to change, but it seems like an easy alternative is to pay attention to the word completion options in the search box, and bypassing the general US Open article and going to the respective men's and women's pages directly.  For example, a GA like the 2008 Summer Olympics doesn't have hatnotes to all the event specific articles. Tennis does not seem to be a unique case that requires it going forward.—Bagumba (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that I think this new format takes care of the issues of finding those two singles draws. I have no problem with the removal of the hatnote EXCEPT that if the other 2020 (and probably at least 2019) majors aren't done in this same format then we'd have an oddball with this article. If they don't also change then I would keep the info at the top for continuity, even in this article. That's my only beef and I always side with our thousands of readers if guidelines happen to get in the way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I understand. However, I think it's better to be inconsistently good than consistently bad. There is no deadline. The hope is that good examples get replicated.—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, an arbitrary selection of particular pages that have been deemed "good quality" is not the most accurate indicator of the usefulness or completeness of this article as it was. Having the prose at the top is fine, but the same data should at least remain so it can be referenced in comparison to other Grand Slam pages. If the list of women's withdrawals needs to be collapsed and expanded to take up less space for this particular edition, which was by all accounts unusual, then that's fine. But it seems in bad faith that many of the editors who have decided to remove this data do not typically edit tennis pages, only to begin sweeping changes just three days ago. Savvy10 (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. The FA/GA comparison was only to question whether the "standard structuring" was based on quality standards or rote repetition of an arbitrary format. Above, Fyunck(click) wrote that "Tennis Project does not have these article etched in stone as to layout". Collapsing tables should generally not be done. When it is, it's often an indication that the information isn't that important to begin with. A bold edit should not be assumed to be in bad faith, and there is no ownership of articles here. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I have tried one final time to re-insert the tables in such a way that the prose remains at the top and the readers' wishes to find information about the singles draws are still fulfilled. If the consensus still insists on the destructive deletion of useful and relevant information without adequate or proper replacement elsewhere, so be it. Savvy10 (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I have a question then. The charts you re-inserted... they were moved to the mens singles page when @PCN02WPS: did the update. You need to explain why it's better to include mens seeds and mens withdrawals and mens protected rankings here rather than on the mens singles article. Isn't it a better fit there? To keep all the specific mens stuff on the mens singles article? It does look like he did not do the same transfer for doubles though, and that would be a problem. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, PCN02WPS and just to say that I fully support the changes PCN02WPS made to this article, which allowed us to support its inclusion on the main page. The previous version did not conform to the standards required by Wikipedia's WP:Manual of style, and the vast number of tables with very little accompanying prose were a violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Every year, these grand slam articles get nominated for ITN featuring and they're always opposed on the grounds of quality, without anyone stepping up to actually resolve the issues. So massive kudos to PCN02WPS for doing that. And we should not take the many previous years-worth of poor quality articles as a guide for how this one should be. Actually it should be the reverse. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 I did the same formatting to the current 2020 French Open article. I hope I got it the same. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Where is the player statistics in Grand Slam pages that no longer appears in XXXX YYYY Open/Championships in every annual competition? What is the problem now?
As the edits that would be going to accept into the singles pages with nothing to treat with the new idea.
The problem is the names of players are no longer listed, and so if does appear in XXXX YYYY Men/Women's Singles/Doubles or Mixed Doubles tournament, and here is the shown text and example from Men's Singles article:

Hence, here is the example from the Women's Singles article:

Is there in need of explanation to add seeds, wild cards, qualifiers, alternates, withdrawals and lucky losers in every singles/doubles article. Any reason? ApprenticeFan work 14:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

From what I can see, the seeds are all listed on the individual singles articles. Look at the 2020 US Open – Men's Singles... the seeds are there. Below the draw (as it should be) the other items are there... wild cards, qualifiers, alternates, withdrawals and lucky losers. That's the article they should be in and that's the location they should be in. I really didn't participate in the discussion except for the hatnote on the top of the article (which is no longer needed with this clearer format). Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Opinion: I think only seeds and qualifiers/lucky losers are necessary since they give out important info. – 333-blue at 12:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2020 US Open (tennis)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sportsfan77777 (talk · contribs) 03:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Finally, another tennis article! And it's a tournament article! We could use another one of those as a GA. Noting that we already have one modern tournament article as a GA: 2009 Sony Ericsson Open. That article does at least some things well (albeit some other parts are out-of-date). We also have 1877 Wimbledon Championships as an FA, but the format of that article is very different because of the times and I don't think it will add so much insight for this article. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I imagine this one will be at least a little bit more difficult to get to GA status because of the extra things that need to be covered because of the pandemic. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Also noting that while tennis doesn't have many good tournament articles, other sports do: in particular, snooker (e.g. 2018 World Snooker Championship), cycling (e.g. 1989 Tour de France), and auto racing (e.g. 2006 Bank of America 500). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


### Lead
First paragraph should go through the "run by ITF, part of 2020 ATP Tour and 2020 WTA Tour" stuff (The 2009 Sony Ericsson Open article does this, for instance), and also need to write out the non-abbreviated ITF somewhere. (Took this out of the "Tournament" section and moved it to the lead, with a few tweaks - I didn't want to be repetitive and it seemed slightly out of place where it was.) Maybe for ATP and WTA too.
Mention "professional" somewhere.
The lead should talk about the entire tournament rather than just last year's champions and this year's champions.
Some of the key topics of this tournament that I'd suggest adding are
(1) A lot of top-ranked players missing the tournament in general, such as Nadal, Barty, Halep (due to the pandemic) and Federer (due to injury); and Andreescu (due to one or both of these reasons)
(2) There was no qualifying draw.
(3) Djokovic's incident
(4) Osaka's masks
(5) Thiem becoming the first new Grand Slam men's singles champion since 2014
There is certainly some discretion about what to include.
Something in general to keep in mind is that virtually everything in the lead should be repeated in the body of the article. Even now, that's not the case. (Andreescu is not mentioned again.)
New comments:

Osaka wore similar masks for each of her other six matches, each with a different name of a Black American killed as a result of police brutality. <<<=== Minor note: The majority (I think 5 of 7) were Black Americans killed as a result of police brutality, but not all of them.
Fixed – I replaced with "...African-American who died as a result of unjust violence from police or other citizens in the United States...", if "unjust" is a NPOV violation, I can remove that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


### Tournament
took place at BJK Tennis Center <<< where it has been held since when?
Some of this section has not been properly updated.
For example: "The tournament will be held on 17 Laykold[1] hard courts." (tense)
Also: "The tournament consisted only of the men's and women's singles and doubles draws" <<<=== there were wheelchair draws too
Some of the grammar at the end of the second paragraph is not so good.
"qualifying matches, mixed doubles and junior matches would not be played." <<<=== I think "there were none of these draws" is more representative than "these draws were not played" (the latter implies something more like this).
Western & Southern Open ===>>> Cincinnati Open (changed to "Cincinnati Masters" instead as that was the name given in the lead of 2020 Western & Southern Open)
Why did them using the Grandstand for the Cincinnati Open mean they couldn't also use it for this tournament (given that they were different weeks)?


### COVID-19 pandemic
The things in parentheses don't need to be in parentheses.
I agree with mentioning that there were draw changes in both this section and the preceding section; however, as is, it's a bit repetitive. One of the sections (probably the first) should be more detailed than the other.
Having a paragraph to go through the key players who missed tournament because of the pandemic might go here as the second paragraph.
The last two paragraphs seem like they are about the same thing and should just be one paragraph.
women's doubles team of Timea Babos and Kristina Mladenovic <<<=== clarify these were the top seeds
Maybe this section should be a sub-section of the Tournament section? (but that's discretional)


### Players
This section probably requires the most improvement.
The first major point is that it should also have prose. (see 2009 Sony Ericsson Open for a basic example)
Some things you might want to think about are:
(1) How are the players in the tournament determined? (In particular, what were the direct acceptance cutoffs in the singles draws?)
(2) For this tournament in particular (because of all of the withdrawals), who were the top seeds?
(3) Who were the favorites? (at least for singles, maybe doubles too)
(4) Who were the former winners? (and for the men's singles, also former finalists, since there were so few former winners)
(5) Was there anything worth noting about how the rankings could change?
(6) Summarize the wild cards, PRs, and players who weren't initial direct acceptances. (Murray and Clijsters are worth noting, for instance. This overlaps with the former winners point.)
(7) Normally I'd summarize the withdrawals here, but in this case, most of them might fit better in the pandemic section above. Federer, and maybe a few others, still probably fit in here. (Added major withdrawals)
The second major point is that I'd recommend replacing the lists of singles players with the lists of singles seeds (e.g. that you can find in 2019 US Open). We don't need to list all of the players, and this list in particular is not so useful because it is not ordered by seed or alphabetically. (I don't like the idea of ordering by place in the draw without the draw itself. It just looks random.) By contrast, the lists of seeds are ordered by seed (and you can also sort them by pre-tournament ranking and post-tournament ranking points). It also contains more useful information in that it also shows who all the best players lost to, and the changes in the points and rankings (something that is not discussed enough as is; see the comments on the points section below).
I really have no opinion one way or the other, and of course my main goal is to help out our readers as much as possible, but I am hesitant to mess with these tables at all due to the amount of debate that seems to spark whenever someone does so. See Talk:2020 US Open (tennis)#Inclusion of supporting tables, Talk:2021 Australian Open#Bold edit notice, etc. My point of view in the latter was more based around getting the article in good enough shape to be posted to ITN, though in hindsight I would say that the table you suggest (which was removed from that page and this one) is probably the more helpful one. I'd appreciate some advice as to what path to take here - perhaps replace the existing table with the one you suggest, though have it auto-collapsed? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
From reading those discussions, my impression is that many of the complaints were about removing the two singles seeds charts. I don't think the complaints at ITN were about any individual charts either, but rather there being too many charts in general (which I agree with). Overall, I'd stick to the same recommendation to replace the singles player lists with the singles seed charts. I don't see the need to have them auto-collapsed, but I'm more indifferent on that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Done – singles seeds tables have been added. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
New comments:

Because COVID-19 precautions necessitated the cancellation of the qualification matches, the ATP and WTA Rankings were used to determine entry into the tournament; <<<=== This isn't quite right. The difference is they determined all of the entries instead of just most of them.
I altered the wording to take this into account. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The rest is fine.


### Events
How you refer to seeds is not consistent. Sometimes they are labelled as "-seed", other times as "No. #". I generally prefer saving "No. #" for ranking rather than seed, as it's commonly used in expressions like "world No. 1".


### Men's singles
In general, I might target making this three paragraphs rather than two.
holding the top seeding ===>>> holding the top seed
Tournament rules necessitated that Djokovic default the match <<<=== I think "Djokovic was defaulted", not "Djokovic defaulted". I'm not sure it was required either? I think the umpire (or another official?) has to make the decision.
while Busta <<<=== It's "Carreño Busta"
Seems like the first part of the second men's singles paragraph isn't cited?
Mention Zverev's two-set comeback was his first.
came down to the wire <<<=== too informal
7–6 (6) <<<=== use the superscript format.
Some of the points on the draw page are worth adding. I would recommend: (and you may need to integrate it into the paragraphs rather than just putting it at the end)(1) Djokovic's disqualification from the tournament ensured there would be a guaranteed first-time Grand Slam finalist in the top half of the draw.
(2) His disqualification also meant this would be the first Grand Slam tournament since the 2004 French Open to not feature either Djokovic, Federer or Nadal in the semifinals
Split Djokovic's DQ into a middle paragraph and added these in that paragraph. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


### Women's singles
In general, I might target making this three paragraphs rather than two.
Mertens's seed is wrong
"Round of 16" shouldn't be capitalized
as the top two players headed into the finals <<<=== quarterfinals
the other two semifinals saw No. 28 Jennifer Brady defeat No. 23 Yulia Putintseva <<<=== quarterfinals
she proved that not to matter <<<=== too informal
woke up from her self-described bad attitude <<<=== "self-described bad attitude" is okay in quotes, but "woke up" seems a bit too informal even in quotes
her third Grand Slam (add "singles title")
Some of the points on the draw page are worth adding. I would recommend: (and you may need to integrate it into the paragraphs rather than just putting it at the end)(1) With her first round win over Kristie Ahn, Serena Williams surpassed Chris Evert for the most match wins (102) in US Open history.
(2) 29 of the 32 seeded women progressed to the second round; the most since the US Open changed from 16 seeds to 32 seeds in 2001.
(3a) Either 3a or 3b: With Williams, Azarenka and Tsvetana Pironkova all winning their fourth round matches, it marked the first time in Grand Slam history that 3 mothers had reached the quarterfinals.
(3b) Either 3a or 3b: The semifinal between Williams and Azarenka was the first semifinal between 2 mothers in Grand Slam history. (went with 3b)
Add a photo of the winner.


### Doubles
I'll hold off on commenting on these until the two singles sections are done, or close.


### Wheelchair
I'll hold off on commenting on these until the two singles sections are done, or close.


### Points and money
In general, this section should discuss the general trends of the points and prize money. Some of this section already does that, but a lot of it doesn't.
"All men's and women's doubles players that made it past the first round received half the points of their singles counterparts." <<<=== Something like this is good in that it summarizes the points distribution in general
"women's singles players got 240, 130, 70, and 10 for an exit in the first four rounds" <<<=== Something like this does not seem necessary. You don't need to transcribe exactly what's written in the chart. That's the point of the chart.
Might as well include the wheelchair point and money charts?
You can't start a sentence with a number.
Another major point is that this section doesn't explain enough of the points system (i.e. the 52-week system). This is more complicated than usual because of how the points system was changed. (Also, what are these points for? The fact that the points determine the rankings should be mentioned.)
Did my best to explain the difference this year versus other years. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
For the prize money, I'd recommend talking more about the reductions at different levels (and again, not just transcribing the chart).
Talked a bit about that as well as the reductions compared to last year and the reasons for that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


### Broadcast / Viewership
You need to add a broadcast or viewership section, something like that.


### Overall
I guess the players's section is the biggest comment.
The lead is a big comment as well.
The points/prize money section is also a big comment, but that's probably more straightforward to address than the others.
Some of the links are missing access dates, and how certain websites are referred to isn't always consistent (probably should leave out "www.").
You could also add dates to all of the links if you want.
Dates (and authors) added when available. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Overall, it's in okay shape, but certainly on track. It's especially good that it has prose to go through the events when most articles don't have that at all. The types of sources used are mostly good, aside from some formatting issues. I'll also note that you can take what time you need to address these points. Placing on hold. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have addressed many of the smaller things, like copyediting, sourcing, and some formatting changes. I'll most likely get into the more involved stuff in the next few days. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Sportsfan77777, I believe I've addressed all concerns above - if you have comments about the doubles/wheelchair sections or about any of my recent changes, I'd appreciate if you could let me know. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I tweaked a few more things related to the pandemic changes in the entrants and points. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Other than that, everything important looks covered. Passing! Good work! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Sportsfan77777, thanks so much for the review and for your patience! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks promising. I can keep an eye on the FAC page. Queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 As a result, withdrawals and opt-outs became a theme of the competition.  - why not just, "many players withdrew"? - how is opting out different to withdrawing?
As far as I understand, an opt-out occurs before the beginning of the event (or before one's involvement in the event has begun) and a withdrawal occurs after the event has already begun. For example, Federer and Nadal opted out, since they stated before the tournament that they would not participate, while women's doubles No. 1 Babos/Mladenovic withdrew, since they were forced to leave the tournament after their first round match. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The tournament consisted of the men's and women's singles and doubles draws, [as well as] men's and women's wheelchair singles and doubles draws and a wheelchair quad singles and doubles draw. - bracketed bit redundant
Removed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Due to a decision made by the New York state government, draws for qualifying matches, mixed doubles, and junior matches were not held. - why not "The New York state government dispensed with draws for qualifying matches, mixed doubles, and junior matches."?
As far as I can tell, those draws were cancelled by the tournament itself due to protocol set in place by the NY government, not directly cancelled by the state of New York; I have updated the wording to reflect that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks in good shape otherwise and would appear to be within striking distance of  FA status Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Casliber, thank you for the feedback! Let me know if anything else needs fixing, and if not, I'll set up the FAC nomination tomorrow. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
In the immortal words of Nike, "just do it!" (chuckle) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
There are some big issues here as far as consensus and structure. Look at 2020 Australian Open and 2020 French Open and 2021 Australian Open. These were the agreed upon structure as far as what's included and placement. The seed tables are to be placed in the individual discipline articles. And nothing is more important than the prose sections followed immediately by who won the events section. You can't believe how many reader complaints we had about the "Events" section being pushed down the page so they had to scroll to find them. The new paragraph that was added had duplication from the Tournament section and should be included in that section or the Covid section if there were changes to normal structure. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
An image was inadvertently removed but has been re-added. The "Players" section has been re-added but trimmed for duplicate info in prose, and covid-related material has been placed in the covid section. The "Singles players" section is per consensus, and seed chart removal is per consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)