Talk:History of the National Hockey League (1992–present)/GA1

GA Review

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 Post-lockout section, "The Sabres hosted the 2008 NHL Winter Classic on New Year's Day 2008, losing to the Pittsburgh Penguins in a shootout before a crowd of 71,217 at Ralph Wilson Stadium[46] The second Winter Classic is scheduled to be held January 1, 2009 at Wrigley Field in Chicago between the Blackhawks and Red Wings", is a period missing between "Stadium" and "The"?

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   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 if "Dallas Stars" is linked once, per here. In the Background section, fix the link to "Gil Stein". In the Post-lockout section, link "Pittsburgh Penguins" once.

   Half-check. You missed this part. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Didn't read your comment carefully enough... Fixed now. Maxim_(talk) 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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:

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

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Both fixed. The missing period was most likely as a result of a botched copypaste... Maxim_(talk) 19:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to Maxim 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) 21:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)