Talk:Ana Ivanović

This article used to be a very good article. It was promoted on 3 July 2008 and demoted on 6 June 2021. This means the community feels this article was written very well, but is not now. You may see the vote that promoted the article here. You may see the vote that demoted the article here.

Proposed VGA

So, I've proposed the article as a candidate for VGA. The requirements are set out below.

1. The article must be about a subject which belongs in Wikipedia. There is no use improving articles that do not belong here, and better fit another wiki, like Wikibooks, Wikispecies, Wiktionary, etc.

    Done - she's the best female tennis player in the whole world so it's highly relevant to have an article about her here.

2. The article must be comprehensive. A comprehensive article is not missing any major facts and details.

    Done - her life is covered comprehensively from birth, growing up, playing junior tennis, and then onto her appearances in major tournaments.

3. The article must have a certain length. A minimum is 5 kilobytes, not including infoboxes, images, references, other websites, interwiki, and categories. There is no use in denoting very short articles as very good.

    Done - according to this, the readable prose is 5.0 kilobytes.

4. The article must have gone through a few revisions, possibly by different editors. No one writes perfect articles.

    Done - the article has gone through 108 revisions since it was created as a stub, including edits from two other editors besides me and a bot edit to complete the interwiki links.

5. The article must be placed in the appropriate category. It must have at least one interwiki link.

    Done - categorised correctly and has a comprehensive list of interwiki links.

6. The last few revisions should be minor changes (like spell-checking or link-fixing).

    Done - last few edits are minor tinkering to the article, linking out to new stubs I've created, creating a reference instead of a footnote etc.

7. All important terms should be linked and there must be no red links left. Red links point to articles that do not exist yet. Usually the important word or phrase is only linked the first time it occurs.

    Done - article is comprehensively linked and contains zero red links.

8. If there are any illustrations, they must be pertinent to the article. They must also be properly labelled.

    Done - illustrated with two good images, both with correct labels.

9. There must be no templates pointing to the fact that the article needs improvement. These templates include {{complex}}, {{cleanup}}, {{stub}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}}. The article also should not need them.

    Done - no templates except the {{pvgood}} one.

10. Content that is from books, journal articles or other publications needs to be referenced. This can either be done with <ref>..</ref><references/> tags, or as a list of publications. For articles that have references or external links on the English Wikipedia, there must be at least one in the Simple English article as well.

     Done - article is far better referenced than the English Wikipedia article and the {{cite web}} is used consistently to provide a complete set of references. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It does say "possibly," but the sentence "Nobody writes perfect articles" implies that other people must actually revise the text. Cassandra 07:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering this is simple English Wikipedia, if that's what the criterion means, that's what the criterion should actually say. So as it stands, the criterion has been met. If you wish to revise the criterion to say "the article must have been edited extensively by more than one person" then perhaps we need to propose a revised criterion over at VGA talk. And actually, the concept that "no-one writes perfect articles" is deeply flawed. If someone writes an article which meets all the criteria defined here (except 4, obviously) then the article is a VGA, no arguments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I am not into tennis at all; so I lack the tennis specific vocabularly. I am also a brute whose mother tongue is not English. I have a decent knowledge of English, so I can deduce what serve probably means ( special term talking about her playing-style). Given however, that this is supposed to be a VGA, I think that term should probably be linked, and explained somewhere. --Eptalon (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Eptalon, I could kiss you! At last some positive feedback on the article. I'll be more than happy to link serve and write an article about it. Thanks for the advice. Anything else you'd like to suggest, I'm all ears. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There are probably a few other tennis-specific terms that need linking and explaining. Backhand is a candidate. --Eptalon (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Both serve and backhand now linked with their own new stubs. Is there anything else unclear? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As to the criterion 4, see the original discussion. The current understanding seems to be that the different editor part is optional. If the criterion can only be read as the different editor part being required, we probably need to talk about rewording it. --Eptalon (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the criterion should be deleted. The ultimate goal of the process is to ensure the community are happy with the article. If they aren't then they'll either oppose its promotion or do something about it. We don't need a criterion to mandate this. It's a wiki. The only thing this criterion is currently doing is causing confusion and potentially preventing good and very good articles being promoted for no good reason. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, as of today, Maxim, Eptalon, Gwib and Tygrrr have all made edits to the article so, as far as I can see, the article now meets all 10 criteria. Therefore it would be helpful if people could offer opinions at the VGA page. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

very tall

The article currently describes this tennis player as "very tall." I don't want to be so quibble as to eliminate the word "tall," but is the adverb "very" appropriate? Certainly in terms of basketball, it would be misplaced, but in terms of the general female population or women tennis players, is it appropriate? Player L. Davenport is taller. Are there any data on heights of professional women tennis players? Kdammers (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Needs some TLC from a tennis fan

This article is now several years out of date, has a lot of dead links, and probably needs some general improvement and expansion. It is fairly brief. Someone familiar with Ivanović could probably shape this up relatively quickly. --Gotanda (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

question

• Eptalon This is a VGA, so should I don't think the Update tag should be on it? Thoughts? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 02:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The flag has been there for years (and nothing happened). You can probably propose demotion?-Eptalon (talk)