Talk:2012–13 Vancouver Canucks season/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 03:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very knowledgeable on this topic. Give me a couple days to read through the article and I will drop notes or questions down on this page. maclean (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
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:

1b. Per WP:Lead, "...summarize the body of the article..." - the current lead section does not appropriately summarize the body.

The lead is simmilar to other Season GAs such as 1974–75 Buffalo Sabres season, 2010–11 Calgary Flames season, 2011–12 Columbus Blue Jackets season and others.

1a. The prose is not clear and concise in places and sometimes the paragraphs are not used correctly (e.g. some random point tacked onto the end). I will provide some examples below.
- In "Off-season" the first paragraph deals with the repercussions of last season and managerial moves, then adds the fact that they "wore" (would wear?) a special patch.

Moved this into its own paragraph, brought up information mentioned later in the article to prevent a one sentence paragraph.

- " the team might fire head coach " - firing a coach is not a team decision.
- "Luongo's services." - what?

Re-worded these two

- In "Training camp", why report on the Luongo-Toronto rumoured deal here (the ref said it took place in the summer-offseason while the references was published/recorded in April)?

I put there originally because I consider training camp to be part of the off-season and it seemed to fit in with the other rumors regarding Toronto. In retrospect that is probably the wrong place for it to be. I moved it up to the first section that deals with the trade rumors.

- When did training camp occur?

Added the date. It was implied in the lockout section, but is now more straight forward.

- Why no mention of pre-season expectations? Weren't they considered one of the top teams in the league and amongst the favourites to win the Cup?
- Why so little description of the roster and roles? "January" is all about the goalies and "February" is all about injuries...so who was scoring for them? who was their top line?
- The writing is generally good but sometimes it is not balanced (or lacks focus). For example, as mentioned above the "February" section forgets about the games and focuses almost exclusively on injuries - no mention of the 6-game win streak or losing 5 of 7 games to end the month; 'injuries' can be a theme but the games played should be the focus of discussion. Likewise, there is sometimes excessive detail about one play; for example, "March" has 4 sentences about their 6-game win streak followed by 4 sentences about Edler colliding with a goalie and an entire paragraph about the details of one game. Second, hockey jargon sometimes slips in.
- I question the use of some of these quotes. They sometimes seem random and unimportant. Quotes should be used for opinions and when their specific words are important - otherwise paraphrase. For example "The move was viewed as a "cheap" way of keeping his ironman streak intact." - if you think it is important to use this specific word then it should be attributed to that person who said it (like, "The move was viewed by hockey-columnist xxxx as a "cheap" way..." otherwise paraphrase it "The move was derided..." with hopefully more than one reference to someone who panned it.); also " the two goaltenders were "quality individuals." - why is this important enough to quote?; also "Luongo allowed two goals that he felt he "could have done a better job" on," - why is this important enough to quote?; "...noted that it was "a bulls--- call" also pointing out..." - WP:NOTCENSORED pretty sure he didn't muffle his words (Calgary Herald may have altered his words but WP shouldn't be quoting altered quotes).

For the above three points I will attempt to address them soon. I need to track down some refs and reword some things.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Why the "final roster" and not ~~initial or mid-season or~~ everyone who played on that team during that season (like the title of the article suggests)?

This has been removed. The team roster template is placed on the page during the current season. A user has been going through and converting it into a table on all season pages. In them in past seasons I worked on since the stats tables cover this information, but they were re-added. It wasn't something worth getting in an edit war over so I had been leaving them.
Conclusion: onhold

1b. There are two things wrong with the current intro section. (1) The second sentence is filler. Make it about the Canucks, not some general statement that could be in two dozen other articles. (2) The majority of the body describes how the Canucks did over the course of the season but this intro is dominated by its results with a little too much weight given to specifics. The Blue Jackets article you linked above has the best lead section - it doesn't just say that they came in last, but also says how the got there. Re-frame the second paragraph to describe how the season unfolded: two high quality goaltenders competing for the #1 position, slow start, win streak, leading the offense, injuries resulted trade, etc. Less about the additional details ~~surpassing Markus Naslund~~ ~~with the logo of the Vancouver Millionaires, the first professional team in the city~~

I have reworded the lead.

3. See notes above regarding balance and focus. "January" is good, but "February" only deals with injuries to individual players (only the last sentence mentions anything about how the team was doing). And there has to be something about offense.

I have added more to Feb. and add some about offense.

Thank you for the review.