Talk:1974–75 Buffalo Sabres season/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Harrias ^talk 17:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, first things first: by my reckoning this passes all 'quick-fail' criteria (or doesn't pass, depending on your viewpoint), and I'm happy it has undergone a significant expansion and improvement since it's last review.

Lead

Would be nice to see the lead expanded upon slightly. I feel that it should definitely include the fact that they finished as Stanley Cup runners-up up (or losing finalists, however you'd rather phrase it).
"After a subpar year in 1974 that saw them miss the NHL playoffs..." – I'm slightly confused by this; do you mean the whole season (1973–74) was poor, or the year 1974 (ie, end of the 1973–74 season and start of the 1974–75 season). Could do with clarification; if it just means the previous season, it might be better just to state that.
I'd prefer to see 'first' and 'second' rather than '1st' and '2nd' in the second paragraph, and feel that MOS:NUM implies this too, but I'm not going to be picky if you'd rather leave it as it is.

Offseason

The formatting, with the 'Round' column being so wide, and yet the '#' column being too narrow, forcing '29 overall' onto two lines seems weird to me, can that be sorted out to look better?

Transactions

"The Sabres acquired the rights to goaltender Gerry Desjardins from the New York Islanders for the rights to Garry Lariviere on February 19, 1975." – To someone with little or no knowledge of hockey, 'acquired the rights' is probably quite ambiguous, it might be worth expanding upon this slightly, or providing a note.

Regular season

"After starting the season 3–3–1" – "3–3–1" definitely needs an explanation, while it is common usage in American sports, this isn't seen in English ones much at all.
"..an 18–1–3 tear.." – Probably just an US(Eng) / UK(Eng) breakdown, but I don't really understand the usage of 'tear' in this context.
"..the Sabres had the best record in hockey.." – This is very general, I think "..best record in the NHL.." might be needed; after all, some amateur team may have gone unbeaten all season!
"The streak included two streaks of at least 10 games without a loss." – This sounds a little awkward, possibly rephrase it something like: The streak included two unbeaten stretches of at least 10 games.?
"The team posted a season high 6-game win streak.." – Per MOS:NUM, six should be written out. Also, I think 'season-high' should be hyphenated as in the following sentence.
"..although none of them played 75 of the team's 80 games." – This is a little ambiguous, it doesn't rule out them playing 80 games! Perhaps ..although none of them played as many as 75 of the team's 80 games.?
"Gilbert Perreault's 8 game-winning goals was fifth." – Fifth in the league, conference, division? Could you clarify please. Also, 8 should be eight, per MOS:NUM.
You interchange in usage for 9th, 10th, fifth, tenth throughout this paragraph (and indeed the article). As I stated in the lead section; I'd prefer them written out, but I'm not too fussy as long as you are consistent throughout.
The second paragraph gets pretty bogged down with stats and records. I accept this is sort of the point of the paragraph, but it reads like a set of bullet points. Could you have a crack at making it more prosaic?
Same with the third paragraph.
The fourth paragraph is (I assume) referring to netminders; as a hockey fan this is barely noticeable to me, a lay-person wouldn't have a chance.

Summary so far

I'm going to take a break from this and let you work on the above points. However, overall I'd say that the article needs a pretty thorough copy-edit. I'm aware an article doesn't have to be perfect for GA, but I think this article suffers from a fair few technical problems that currently prevent its promotion. Although there is still a good deal of the article which I haven't reviewed, I'm going to place the review on hold, pending a copy-edit over the whole article, and the specific changes listed above. I'll be happy to field any queries and should be about most of the next few days. Harrias ^talk 18:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just read on the rest of the article in more depth, and the more I look at it, the more problems I see. The tables sort poorly, sometimes completely incorrectly (Birthdate for example) the table headings at abbreviated without explanation, with one of the headers being simply "'" which I don't understand the relevance of at all. Columns and rows that should possibly be unsortable sort with the rest of the tables, and your two player stats tables confuse me; the top one seems to include regular and post-season, but the second one then includes the post-season stats again (with more detail). I'm going to fail the article and suggest a peer review, especially given there are some problems pertaining to the prose in later sections.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Harrias ^talk 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]