Talk:Li Na
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
This article is supported by the Sports and games work group. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, which collaborates on Tennis related subjects on Wikipedia, such as players, tournaments and rules. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
Discussion page for Li Na article: please suggest additions and amendments here!
- This is a very heavily POV article. It needs some fairly thorough cleaning up. We are just supposed to provide the facts, not produce an original narrative advocating her greatness. Metamagician3000 00:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Metamagician. I agree with most of your cuts and edits so far, and that there are some other areas where 'point of view' comes across more than fact still to be dealt with. But there are a couple of small things you have removed which I feel detract unnecessarily from the article as it stood:
1) 'Li Na whitewashed the American in the second-set tie-break' - This is a fact: Li won the second set tie-break by seven points to love. No point of view in this part of the sentence you deleted. 'Whitewashed' is a common sports journalism term describing a win for the loss of no points or games (depending on the context). The purpose of the overall sentence was to demonstrate the changes of fortune within the match. At the end of the second set, everything was going Li's way; it is clear from the final set scoreline that fortunes then reversed. If 'suffered a collapse of form' is too much 'POV', then perhaps there might be some other way of expressing the same observations.
2) 'to avenge her recent defeat by the Czech player' - 'avenge' is also a standard sports journalist's term to describe the fact of a team or player having lost the previous bout with another team / player having then reversed this outcome in the next contest. This is precisely what Li had achieved at this point against Hantuchova. Again I feel there is no point of view in this. It is simply relating what she had just achieved to the reverse situation in her previous match against Hantuchova. Taking out this clause detracts from the flow of the article as a survey of her progress or lack thereof in my opinion.
Would request your permission, as an administrator, to restore these two particular deletions while respecting all the others you have made so far.
Philip Graves
- I'm not making changes as an administrator - just as a user with a reasonable understanding of NPOV. Be bold about reverting them if you disagree with (some of) them. Just keep in mind that we try to avoid expressing our own point of view either explicitly or in the language we choose. I've been looking at a lot of the tennis articles in the wake of Wimbledon and find that people need to be reminded of this. Metamagician3000 01:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] There. I did it.
I hope the edits are fine. I just revamped her page. InoescoIsaRhino
You've cut out the POV expressions, but you've also sheared away a whole lot of the factual detail from the earlier article. Was this really necessary? Comparing the end of your run of edits with the last version before you began seems to suggest you've cut the article in half roughly speaking.
