Talk:Ottawa Senators/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Headings

Just letting everybody know, I changed the heading First finals in 80 yrs to First finals in 80yrs for the city. The previous version appeared to suggest the team (not the city) was appearing in the finals after 80 years, which is inaccurate. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Ottawa's first finals in 80 years? Alaney2k (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding the city name to the same original text still seems to suggest continuity. GoodDay's version seems to be better to ward off the suggestions of continuity though I think a better header can be thought of (though I cannot think of one at the moment). --Pparazorback (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Retired Numbers

Umm, I thought I'd changed that section's content to pros style (as called for at Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format; can't remember though. If so, who changed it back? GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You did... The modification? That would have been Alaney2k, who did that with this: diff --Pparazorback (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall any prose in that section. The team doesn't have much in their short history for that section. The format page does not have much to go on for that section. Easy enough to fix up. Alaney2k (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review 2.0

The article is well-written enough, but there are a lot of things that are unsourced. For example, the entire "1998-2007: Emergence as Stanley Cup contenders" section does not have a single citation and there are some things in there that do need citations like Yashin's nickname "Alexei Cashin". In fact, the section could be renamed to "1998-2003" because that is all that is detailed and all of the following years have their own sections. Some stuff that needs sources:

1. "The Senators would defeat the Canadiens 5–3 that night, but it would be one of the few highlights that season for the Senators. The club would tie with the San Jose Sharks for the worst record in the league that year, winning only 10 games with 70 losses and 4 ties (24 points) in the 1992-93 season. The club would go on to finish last in the league for the next three seasons as well."
2. "The NHL subsequently changed its rules so that a lottery would be held for the top draft picks so that a 'Daigle Cup' would not occur again."
3. The first, fifth and sixth paragraphs of the "1995-1998: Ottawa's turnaround" section.
4. The "1998-2007: Emergence as Stanley Cup contenders" section.
5. The "2003-04: End of the Jacques Martin era" section.
6. "Heatley's and Alfredsson's sticks from that night are in the Hockey Hall of Fame."
7. "The acquisition of Hasek did not work out as well as the Heatley acquisition, as the team lost Hasek part way through the season due to a hamstring injury he suffered while playing for the Czech national ice hockey team during the 2006 Winter Olympics." It's also rather POVish.
8. The "2006-07: Trip to the Stanley Cup Finals" section
9. "Despite that 80 year gap, one fan attended both finals. The third game of the series and first home game for Ottawa on June 2, was attended by 91-year old Russell Williams as a guest of the Senators. He had attended the last Finals game in Ottawa on April 13, 1927, played in the old Ottawa Auditorium. His presence was a good-luck charm; as the game was won by the Senators, marking a potential comeback."
10. The "Spartacat" and "Sens Army" sections

As well, none of the Team captains, Honoured members, Hall of Famers, Retired numbers, First-round draft picks, Team scoring leaders, NHL awards and trophies and Team records sections cite any sources. But, perhaps they could be moved to their own page. For example, for the Calgary Flames page (which is a GA), a lot of it was moved to a Calgary Flames notable players and award winners page, although there are still sections for the Honoured members and Franchise scoring leaders at the main article.

I am going to fail the article for now, but it reads well and I think it can make GA status relatively soon. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This artile needs quite a lot of work.

• Ref 21 seems dubious - it is a 1994 ref but it discusses events of 2003???!?!?!
• In the notes section, you don't have to create a tag lie "[Robinson]" in teh book list and then use that as a tag throughout the shortform notes. Simply remove the tag IDs and then put "Simpson, p. 63." and so forth. For MacGregor, just use "MacGregor (1993), p. 1." or "MacGregor (1996), p. 2." to disambiguate.
• Ref 41 needs to be fixed
• Page formatting needs to be consistent
• why does it refer to some players as "Mr." This should not be used, simply use their surname on these cases
• Some sections are still unreferenced and need referencing
• There seems to be a missing chunk for the 2004-05 season, whereas the seasons immediately before and after appear to be well described,
• Short 1-2 sentence paras are best of merged together
• The claim that the presence of the 99 year old fan was a good luck charm is POV - how can one prove that his presence caused the result to be good?
• Please use ndashes in teh scores eg 3–1.
• There is a very strong recentist bent in the article
• The descriptions of the fan parades appear to be unencyclopedic
• In the early years, there appears to be a strong emphasis on describing marquee players at the expense of the evolution of the team.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)