Talk:History of the National Hockey League/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Starting Review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well written

Generally the article is fairly well written, with wiki links to technical terms and jargon, which made it accessible to the general reader. I corrected one spelling mistake best-payed to best paid. However there are some instances of bad or unclear grammar, which need to be addressed. I shall list them under the appropriate section headings.

Background and funding. While new, the NHL was a continuation of the NHA. - Whilst being new . . . . would be better. While the owners at first intended the NHL to only operate for one season, the NHA owners met and suspended it permanently in 1918 and the NHA ceased to be an organisation in 1920. What was suspended? Presumably the NHA, this needs clarification, copy editing would sort this out.

1917-1942: Founding, sub-section Early years. Contrary to the growth of its rival leagues, the NHL continued to expand, adding the Maroons and its first American team, the Boston Bruins in 1924, getting up to 10 teams by 1926. Two sentences before we have the PCHA and WCHL merged in 1924, and was disbanded two years later., which suggests that the rival leagues were not growing. Sub-section Great depression. While Conn Smythe was able to successfully build a new arena, numerous other teams experienced financial difficulties. Whilst would be better and grammatically correct.

1942–1967: Original Six, sub-section Post-war period.. While Campbell feared televised hockey ... Whilst.

1967–1992: Expansion era, sub-section World Hockey Association. Talks of a merger between the NHL and the WHA were growing. Either rumours . . . were growing or Talk . . . was growing. while the Edmonton Oilers, Hartford Whalers . . . Whilst. Sub-section Fall of the Iron Curtain. While European-born players. Whilst. While the WHA opened the door. Whilst.

1992 - present: Modern era Collective Bargaining Agreement should be wikified at the fisrt mention in the first subsection, rather than at second mention in second sub-section.

These are minor points which sould be capable of easy fixes. I recommend that another hard look at the prose style be taken. There is room for improving clarity by copy-editing. There are several instances where it is unclear whther US or Candian dollars are meant when the $ sign is used. I would say that this needs to be clarified. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that all of your concerns in this section have now been fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

a (prose): b (MoS):

Factual accuracy

I found four dead links, references #9, #137, #140 & #150. I expect that these can be found either in the Internet Archive or by new Google searches. I have to assume WP:AGF for the book references as I have no access to these and they have not been challenged by other editors. All other online sources support the citations when checked. Running /dabfinder.py found no disambiguation wiki links. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

All references have been replaced. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

Broadness

I am happy that the article is broad and thorough in its scope throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

a (major aspects): b (focused):

NPOV

I am happy that the article complies with WP:NPOV. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair representation without bias:

Stability

I am happy that the article is stable, no edit wars, recent edits appear to be improvements. I notice that there was some difference over the addition of information about the head office move which appears to have been resolved. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No edit wars etc.:

Images

File:NHL Winter Classic.jpg, File:Gary Bettman at Entry Draft 2008.JPG, File:Alexander Mogilny.jpg, File:Gretzky statue cropped.jpg, File:Eric vail atlanta flames 1978.jpg should have original author credited if I am reading the licensing statements correctly. All other images used appear to comply with Wikipedia policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean in the actual captions? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

HI, yes that is my understanding, something like Image by ***** at the end of the caption. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not correct. Attribution is given by the link to the image description page. butterfly (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, on re-reading the WP:MOS, I agree. The attribution is on the image description, so that should be OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Summary

Just a few points: the writing could do with improvement, a few dead links to fix, image creator attribution to be fixed as outlined above. I shall place the GAR on hold which allows seven days for improvements to be made. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

OK, I'm happy, thanks for your quick response. Congratulations on achieving good article status. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)