Talk:Suzanne Lenglen

message: Might be interesting to add to the article:  - McCart42 06:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to [[Alain Gerbault]] 

message: With that two sentence lead? It also has no inline citations and one reference listed. I wish I was around in the good old days when you could get anything featured. Quadzilla99 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article?

message: Article is currently in no shape to deserve FA status. —Onomatopoeia 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article review opened

message: Currently the article opens with the claim of 31 grand slam titles. Several of these are French open titles from an era when the tournament was open only to French nationals. Is there a general convention on whether these earlier tournaments are regarded as grand slam tournaments?Spamburgler (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not... she won 8 Majors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of grand slams 

message: Substituted at 07:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Suzanne Lenglen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222075125/http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/suzanne_lenglen.html to http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/suzanne_lenglen.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Suzanne Lenglen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130125055803/http://www.hickoksports.com/biograph/lenglensuzanne.shtml to http://www.hickoksports.com/biograph/lenglensuzanne.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems very improbable. I am fairly convinced that she died of leukaemia, with which she was diagnosed. Possibly a mistake taken from some early source: in these years not many authors were able to distinguish between leukaemia and anaemia. Here and there (but not in the Wikipedia, luckily) I saw the same misunderstanding about Marie Skłodowska-Curie. Marcowy Człowiek (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pernicious anaemia? 

message: We have to be careful about putting the world hard court titles mixed in with the other major titles. The sourcing is against their inclusion in the same tables. And the Australian was completely removed? Why? The governing bodies of tennis today show Australian/French (from 1925)/Wimbledon/US as the four majors. That's it. Yes, the ILTF said back in 1912 that the World Hard Court was a major... but it also said the World Covered Court was a major along with Wimbledon. The ITF said the US and Australian were not majors back then... shall we remove those? Shall we have a chart with all 7 majors? It makes it very complicated and a bit WP:OR to chart them together. The normal four should be in a chart by themselves and the other chart should contain both the ILTF results. If in one chart then perhaps looking a bit like Rod Laver's chart, that has the pro events separated. But mushed together is a big problem.
And you'll note that in Laver's other charts he has the normal Grand Slam events with 11 titles, and the Pro Slams show another 8. lenglen's should be separated also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the Australian Open because she never competed there. You've done something similar with deleting columns from charts in years where a player was active on the tour, but didn't compete in any Grand Slam tournaments. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

text: The case of Rod Laver is totally different. The Grand Slams and Pro Slams were always separate. The World Hard Courts and Wimbledon were considered in the same class at the time. There are no guidelines for what the chart should look like in either case. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

text: It's easy to source that the World Hard Courts were a major championship; that's not WP:OR. I agree that they have never been retroactively considered a Grand Slam tournament; that's why I labelled the list as "Major finals", not "Grand Slam finals". If you don't like that wording, we can list it as "Championship finals". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to see what columns you're talking about that I removed. Usually we start the Grand Slam only chart with the first Major they compete in till they retire. As far as the same class, that all depends on what organization is doing the listing. Wimbledon, WHHC, and WCCC were the only three world championships per the ILTF. That's it. All three at the same level. US and Australia out! But for all player bios we use a Grand Slam chart which includes AU/FR/W/US only. We try to make it easy for our readers to understand so those are the four that should be included (French since 1925). When I say OR what I mean is find some sources that list all the championships together as Grand Slams or Majors: WHCC/WCCC/AU/FR/W/US. My guess is there are no reliable sources that do it. I didn't say not to show the results but they should be separated. And the Australian should show just like it does on Helen Wills article... a bunch of A's. And if the performance timeline shows the WHCC it should also show the WCCC, since they were the same class at the time. We can bring it up at tennis project talk if you like but I feel it should be completely separate or like Laver's chart. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The statistics section is a bit wonky 

message: *Observation - I noticed that the mixed results of "A" are included in the performance table for the US Nationals. That's absolutely fine and as it should be. However the same courtesy is not given to the Australasian Championships from 1922-1926 for each of the disciplines. Also, since the World Championship events are included in the charts it should also include the "A" results from the World Covered Court Championships. She started the majors in 1914, so 1913 should be removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Twofold. One, she never competed in the US National mixed doubles either, yet that is included. Why... because readers expect it. And two, when you have a table of Grand Slam tournament results and World Championship results I expect to see the results of those events. Two missing tournaments looks a little strange when you also have a missing mixed doubles chart with all the "A's" included for the US Nationals. I guess we could get rid of the row for US Nationals in mixed doubles with simply a note so the table is uniform, however it would then be out of sync with players like Helen Wills or Steffi Graf whose charts contain events that they never played. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is my concern. Readers will see what they expect, they will just assume that everything was the same as today back then, and won't even realize that none of these tournaments were Grand Slam tournaments at the time until 1924. In this era, there was no expectation for the players to play all of the major tournaments, as that became more of the norm afterwards. Very few (if any?) players before 1924 entered all of the tournaments that are now considered majors or Grand Slam tournaments. The earliest Wimbledon champions, for instance, only competed at Wimbledon. Surely, someone like Blanche Bingley isn't missing three or more lines in their performance timeline of nothing but "A"s and "NH"s for the U.S. National Championships, the French Championships, and the Australasian Championships just because those tournaments existed at the time. If William Renshaw and Ernest Renshaw had performance timelines on their pages, they would just include Wimbledon too. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is included in the charts for Wills is fine because she did play primarily after the Grand Slams were inaugurated. There should be different guidelines for the pre-Grand Slam era, the rest of the amateur era, and the Open Era because the landscape of tournaments was very different in all three, and wasn't standardized until the Open Era. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: But then the mixed doubles results for the US Nationals should probably be removed. We don't give our readers what they expect.. we give them vital information. If the World Covered Court Championships aren't considered important enough (one of three majors plus the US and Australasian events), then certainly the mixed doubles US Championships that she didn't play is even less so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... so I'm going on about the A's in the mixed doubles results but I look at her career stats page and it says she played mixed doubles in 1921 at the US Nationals and lost in the first round. Do we know which is correct? I'm having trouble find the mixed draw. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Found the newspaper article that says she was still too distraught to play mixed doubles at Longwood (which was played a week after the singles and doubles). Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find the draw either. I know for sure she didn't play, but not whether she remained in the draw and defaulted. Does that source mention that? I assumed she wasn't in the draw at all because there is no mention of her mixed doubles partner in either book (whereas it is mentioned that Mallory was her doubles partner). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it does say who she was supposed to play with in an earlier article... It was Billy Johnston who wound up winning the event with Mary Browne. They don't show the draw in the papers, but they show who won each days rounds. It doesn't look like they ever formally entered her in the mixed doubles... just that the event was hoping she would make it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Spauldings annual had the mixed draw. I pointed it out and it has been added to the main repository at tennisforum. No need to post it here but I'll post it on your talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to include more events in the performance tables

message: I'm no expert but surely this can't be far off featured level quality? A very interesting read and I'm really enjoying articles like Lenglen–Mallory match at the 1921 U.S. National Championships as well. This is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia truly great in my view. Spiderone 23:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, ! I'm working towards it, nearly there. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA? 

message: There are number of short footnote citations to Little (1988) - The first published version of "Suzanne Lenglen: Tennis Idol of the Twenties" (I am guessing). The revised version (2007) is listed in the bibliography but not the 1988 version. I thought about changing the Little (1988) citations to Little (2007), but of course, I don't have a copy of that book so can't be sure the page numbers match-up. I think the citations should be changed to Little (2007) or Little (1988) added to the bibliography (first method preferred I guess). We should also probably note in the bibliography section that Little (2007) is a revised version. What do you think? Gricharduk (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great - So quick! Thanks a lot . Gricharduk (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suzanne Lenglen: Tennis Idol of the Twenties by Alan Little. Original (1988) and revised (2007) editions 

message: I thought I would start a section here for  to discuss this edit, which undoes some copyedits I made. I'll post some highlights below, so we can discuss the edits.
*"In doubles, she was undefeated with her usual partner Elizabeth Ryan, highlighted by another six titles at Wimbledon." Highlighted? I'm really not sure that's the best word. 
**1: to throw a strong light on "highlighting featured merchandise on the shelves"
**2a: to center attention on : EMPHASIZE, STRESS "The speech will highlight the need for education reform."
**b: to constitute a significant or especially interesting part of : to constitute a highlight of "His trip to Europe was highlighted by a visit to Vatican City."
**3a: to mark (text) with a highlighter
**b: to cause (something, such as text or an icon) to be displayed in a way that stands out on an electronic screen (as of a computer or smartphone) "highlighted the sentence and deleted it"  
::We are talking about meaning 2b here, but the other meanings create a clash in the reader's mind here, and it may come down to what the sources say. Do they describe her six Wimbledon victories as a highlight of her doubles partnership? If they do, this would be ok. But it still might be better to pick a different word. If not, we can't.
::: Lots of words in the article have multiple meanings. Why is this one different? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is an issue with parallelism if you don't repeat it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  "for four" is as you say "a little plodding". I'm not convinced that a preposition is required. What is your source for that? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

text:  I don't really buy that. Other British editors have looked at the article and no one has pointed this out. I'm not so convinced that it's not used at all in British English. For example, here is an article written by a British author in Europe that uses "win streak". It's more concise. And I also think it's more accurate. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

text:  This is not how FAC criteria works. One disagreement does not mean the whole article doesn't meet the criteria. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

text:  What is the reason for this one? Same as above? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

text:  There are two things that happen in this sentence. The emphasis should be on the first, not the second. It's not like it literally says "quickly" twice. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

text:  It happened because of the season. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi Wubslin, I think a lot of your edits just go against MOS:STYLEVAR. Knowing that, are there any of these points that you actually want to discuss? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

text: Also, it seems like you are trying to copyedit as many TFAs as possible and disputing reverts already on similar types of edits. I don't think that's advisable even for an experienced editor, let alone a brand-new editor like yourself trying to hide your past. If you think are good at writing, prove it by writing on your own FAs. If people respect you, then maybe they'll welcome your input more. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there Sportsfan and thanks for replying. I appreciate your comments and will think about your suggestions. Anything specific to say about my suggestions? None of my edits or suggestions have anything to do with STYLEVAR, which recommends discussing concerns in article talk, hence this section. I'm not especially fussed about respect, just trying to improve a few articles. Wubslin (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article quality 

message: "her skirt was both sleeveless" - What, pray tell, is a sleeveless, or for that matter a sleeved skirt?  2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:1869:DD8F:A216:5FAE (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  sleeveless skirt 

message: How could a victory in 1914 help a country recover from a war which hadn’t started yet? Wis2fan (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW I