[003]
ToTheEdge
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"\\\'\\\'awarding\\\'\\\' anywhere from 250 to \\\'\\\'1500\\\'\\\' points \\\'\\\'to the champion\\\'\\\'.\\\"
maybe? I\\\'m just wary of making a clear difference between winning a match and winning a tournament. Apart from that I think it\\\'s good to go.
I do think that the length is necessary for how much information is given, if that makes sense. I personally think the info given is quite interesting but the way it\\\'s written is bordering on walls of text that are so saturated with detail and semi-technical terms I was worried it might be… intimidating? boring? for a casual reader. It\\\'s good to know you didn\\\'t think there was a problem with the content as a relative beginner (that feels really patronising to type, I\\\'m a fairly recent inductee to the world of tennis fans myself), but a complete restructure sounds like the best way to display the information attractively.
Perhaps the \\\"Events\\\" section could also include mentions of the Davis/Fed/Hopman Cup and their format.
Are you thinking it could be in terms of a chronological overview of the tennis season, or listing the Grand Slams as the most important tournaments (with details, explanations etc), followed by Year End Champs / WTFs, then a brief explanation of tiers etc etc?
Also, could I pick your brains about the language?
It\\\'s just that the article jumps from explaining that the ball can only bounce once inside the white lines, to using the terms \\\'\\\'volley\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'topspin\\\'\\\', and expecting the reader to understand what a \\\'\\\'short ball\\\'\\\' is and why a \\\'\\\'baseliner\\\'\\\' would want one. The problem is really that there\\\'s so much content already, should these terms be defined like in the Ice Hockey article, or just cut because they\\\'re not relevant to the casual reader? I certainly think that topspin wouldn\\\'t be particularly missed.
Finally, the picture. (This has literally only just this second occurred to me after looking at the Cricket Rules article, so feel free to shoot it down.) Would it be an advantage to have a more diagram-y image? Or do you think descriptions are enough? I\\\'m not very spatially aware so I have difficulty picturing things in my head from words, so idk. The thing about the diagram on the cricket page is that it\\\'s making a kind of funny point and the image is the only outright humorous part of this page, so maybe we don\\\'t want to lose it?
OK I\\\'m rambling now.
maybe? I\\\'m just wary of making a clear difference between winning a match and winning a tournament. Apart from that I think it\\\'s good to go.
I do think that the length is necessary for how much information is given, if that makes sense. I personally think the info given is quite interesting but the way it\\\'s written is bordering on walls of text that are so saturated with detail and semi-technical terms I was worried it might be… intimidating? boring? for a casual reader. It\\\'s good to know you didn\\\'t think there was a problem with the content as a relative beginner (that feels really patronising to type, I\\\'m a fairly recent inductee to the world of tennis fans myself), but a complete restructure sounds like the best way to display the information attractively.
Perhaps the \\\"Events\\\" section could also include mentions of the Davis/Fed/Hopman Cup and their format.
Are you thinking it could be in terms of a chronological overview of the tennis season, or listing the Grand Slams as the most important tournaments (with details, explanations etc), followed by Year End Champs / WTFs, then a brief explanation of tiers etc etc?
Also, could I pick your brains about the language?
It\\\'s just that the article jumps from explaining that the ball can only bounce once inside the white lines, to using the terms \\\'\\\'volley\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'topspin\\\'\\\', and expecting the reader to understand what a \\\'\\\'short ball\\\'\\\' is and why a \\\'\\\'baseliner\\\'\\\' would want one. The problem is really that there\\\'s so much content already, should these terms be defined like in the Ice Hockey article, or just cut because they\\\'re not relevant to the casual reader? I certainly think that topspin wouldn\\\'t be particularly missed.
Finally, the picture. (This has literally only just this second occurred to me after looking at the Cricket Rules article, so feel free to shoot it down.) Would it be an advantage to have a more diagram-y image? Or do you think descriptions are enough? I\\\'m not very spatially aware so I have difficulty picturing things in my head from words, so idk. The thing about the diagram on the cricket page is that it\\\'s making a kind of funny point and the image is the only outright humorous part of this page, so maybe we don\\\'t want to lose it?
OK I\\\'m rambling now.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
\
to:
\\\"\\\'\\\'awarding\\\'\\\' anywhere from 250 to \\\'\\\'1500\\\'\\\' points \\\'\\\'to the champion\\\'\\\'.\\\"
maybe? I\\\'m just wary of making a clear difference between winning a match and winning a tournament. Apart from that I think it\\\'s good to go.
I do think that the length is necessary for how much information is given, if that makes sense. I personally think the info given is quite interesting but the way it\\\'s written is bordering on walls of text that are so saturated with detail and semi-technical terms I was worried it might be… intimidating? boring? for a casual reader. It\\\'s good to know you didn\\\'t think there was a problem with the content as a relative beginner (that feels really patronising to type, I\\\'m a fairly recent inductee to the world of tennis fans myself), but a complete restructure sounds like the best way to display the information attractively.
Perhaps the \\\"Events\\\" section could also include mentions of the Davis/Fed/Hopman Cup and their format.
Are you thinking it could be in terms of a chronological overview of the tennis season, or listing the Grand Slams as the most important tournaments (with details, explanations etc), followed by Year End Champs/WTFs, then a brief explanation of tiers etc etc?
Also, could I pick your brains about the language?
It\\\'s just that the article jumps from explaining that the ball can only bounce once inside the white lines, to using the terms \\\'\\\'volley\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'topspin\\\'\\\', and expecting the reader to understand what a \\\'\\\'short ball\\\'\\\' is and why a \\\'\\\'baseliner\\\'\\\' would want one. The problem is really that there\\\'s so much content already, should these terms be defined like in the Ice Hockey article, or just cut because they\\\'re not relevant to the casual reader? I certainly think that topspin wouldn\\\'t be particularly missed.
Finally, the picture. (This has literally only just this second occurred to me after looking at the Cricket Rules article, so feel free to shoot it down.) Would it be an advantage to have a more diagram-y image? Or do you think descriptions are enough? I\\\'m not very spatially aware so I have difficulty picturing things in my head from words, so idk. The thing about the diagram on the cricket page is that it\\\'s making a kind of funny point and the image is the only outright humorous part of this page, so maybe we don\\\'t want to lose it?
OK I\\\'m rambling now.
maybe? I\\\'m just wary of making a clear difference between winning a match and winning a tournament. Apart from that I think it\\\'s good to go.
I do think that the length is necessary for how much information is given, if that makes sense. I personally think the info given is quite interesting but the way it\\\'s written is bordering on walls of text that are so saturated with detail and semi-technical terms I was worried it might be… intimidating? boring? for a casual reader. It\\\'s good to know you didn\\\'t think there was a problem with the content as a relative beginner (that feels really patronising to type, I\\\'m a fairly recent inductee to the world of tennis fans myself), but a complete restructure sounds like the best way to display the information attractively.
Perhaps the \\\"Events\\\" section could also include mentions of the Davis/Fed/Hopman Cup and their format.
Are you thinking it could be in terms of a chronological overview of the tennis season, or listing the Grand Slams as the most important tournaments (with details, explanations etc), followed by Year End Champs/WTFs, then a brief explanation of tiers etc etc?
Also, could I pick your brains about the language?
It\\\'s just that the article jumps from explaining that the ball can only bounce once inside the white lines, to using the terms \\\'\\\'volley\\\'\\\' and \\\'\\\'topspin\\\'\\\', and expecting the reader to understand what a \\\'\\\'short ball\\\'\\\' is and why a \\\'\\\'baseliner\\\'\\\' would want one. The problem is really that there\\\'s so much content already, should these terms be defined like in the Ice Hockey article, or just cut because they\\\'re not relevant to the casual reader? I certainly think that topspin wouldn\\\'t be particularly missed.
Finally, the picture. (This has literally only just this second occurred to me after looking at the Cricket Rules article, so feel free to shoot it down.) Would it be an advantage to have a more diagram-y image? Or do you think descriptions are enough? I\\\'m not very spatially aware so I have difficulty picturing things in my head from words, so idk. The thing about the diagram on the cricket page is that it\\\'s making a kind of funny point and the image is the only outright humorous part of this page, so maybe we don\\\'t want to lose it?
OK I\\\'m rambling now.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Should this bit be removed (SPOILER!): \
to:
Should this bit be removed (SPOILER!): \\\"If you\\\'re not crying after Bill tells her she can\\\'t go back with him because he\\\'s too busy having fun with his new wife and leaves her crying, you aren\\\'t human.\\\"
I thought that kid character was unlikeable, and I silently begged the jerkass to take her away offscreen.
Or maybe both the original comment and mine are just a tad too YMMV.
Are there any other non-humans out there?
I thought that kid character was unlikeable, and I silently begged the jerkass to take her away offscreen.
Or maybe both the original comment and mine are just a tad too YMMV.
Are there any other non-humans out there?
