Wikipedia:Peer review/List of table tennis players/archive1

List of table tennis players

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because my idea is to propose it soon as Featured List. In particular, I would know if you agree in the criteria I have defined to be included in the list. I'am planning to extend the list to players with medals in African, Oceanina and Latin/North American Championships. But this will require a big effort. Let me know your idea.

Thanks, Cialo (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments by H1nkles

• Good job on this list, I like the addition of pictures of gold medal winners. I made a minor word order change but other than that I've left the list as is.
• In the lead there are two sentence in smaller font. Why is that? It doesn't seem necessary. Especially the sentence about the main reference for this list.

You are right. I have removed small fonts.

• Why are the five events the only ones considered? What is the basis for this decision? It may be wise to add rationale to the lead so that people don't think it was just an arbitrary decision.

The final target is to include the three major world competitions (olympics, world championships and world cup), and the continental champioships of each continent. However, till now, only asian and european champioships have been considered since those continents have the major tradition in table tennis. I have created a section listing the "considered competitions" where to explain this point.

I'm not sure it's legitimate to eliminate other continental championships simply because they don't have a "major tradition in table tennis". That seems a bit subjective to me. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. So... I'll extend the list, however this is a big effort and will require some time.

--Cialo (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if citing a search page is sufficient. I'm not as familiar with the mindset of the delegates at FLC as I am with the FAC process so it may be fine but it's something to consider.

what is FLC ?

FLC is Featured List Candidates - it's the page used to determine whether a list should be a featured list. If you have more questions please at least ping me on my talk page so that I can answer them. I just happened to be reviewing my review and saw your question, I don't watch review pages and wouldn't normally get your question. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Some of the entries are a name others specify what they won. You may want to specify what each person acheived even if it wasn't a gold medal.

• The introduction says, "The players are listed with their achievements in the single event of the considered competitions." Some of the players don't have their achievements listed. Why? Does "single event" mean one player vs. another player (as opposed to a doubles event)? If so why specify only single event why not include the achievements of those who won in a doubles event? Perhaps I'm just confused.

It is to keep the list as clean as possible. Achievement in double and team events are available in the wikipage of each player.

• When talking about Olympic medals traditionally it is refered to as Olympic gold medal rather than gold Olympic medal.

ok... I'll change it

• Picture captions usually do not have punctuation.

since here we have pictures of players I guess using ":" after the name is acceptable

• Some of your images have a copyright tag that allows its use as long as the author is given credit, but the author is not given credit. I recommend either trying to find the author or a free-use image of the subject or removing the image. You can leave it as is and take your chances at FLC but this may come up as an issue.

this is a quite stressing point... I'll check it asap

• Why do some players have multiple flags next to their names? This should be explained in the introduction.

explained in the new section "other icluded information"

• References should have as a minimum the title, publisher and accessdate. You should add the publisher and accessdate for each ref.

ok... I'll change it

• Overall it's a tidy list. I hope this review has been helpful in giving you some feedback and pointing you in the right direction. If you have any questions please contact me on my talk page as I do not watch review pages. Best of luck to you and please consider reviewing an article/list here or at WP:GAC. There is always a need for more reviewers. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 17:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments... I found it very useful and I'll update the list following your suggestios. --Cialo (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)