Talk:2008–09 Calgary Flames season/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the Regular season section, what do you mean with this ---> "The team again struggled to start November"? In the Playoffs section, "earning 1–0 and 2–0 leads respectively before conceding the advantage against the Chicago attack", what do you mean with "Chicago attack"? In the Transactions section, this ---> "Todd Bertuzzi was the most significant signing by the Flames", sounds POVish. In the Draft picks section, "...Nemisz is described as being a potential power forward who isn't afraid of working hard" ---> "...Nemisz is described as being a potential power forward who is not afraid of working hard".

   Changed or eliminated all statements.

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, it would be best to add (NHL) after "National Hockey League", since the article does mention "NHL". Same section and in the Playoffs section, "seed" is jargon. In the Regular season, link "Northwest Division" and "Colorado Avalanche" once. In the Quad City Flames section, add (AHL) after "American Hockey League".

   Linked seed, removed the redundant links and noted the NHL/AHL abbreviations

   Half-check.

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   "USA Today" in Reference 38 should be in the "work" format. Also, there's a dead link.

   Fixed USA Today, replaced the dead link, and replaced the links rudely broken within the last month by the Calgary Sun (which caused all of the redirect warnings on the EL search)

   Check.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thanks for the review! Resolute 22:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You have, but I have one query, though. You're welcome for the review. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if linking seed is not sufficient, I can change to "fifth ranked". Resolute 23:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That works. Thank you to Resolute for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Appreciated, thanks! Resolute 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)