Talk:Ted Kennedy (ice hockey)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 11:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this one! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Sorry this took so long! First of all, thank you for probably the most enjoyable sports article I've read on Wikipedia yet! However, as is natural with an article of this vast size, there are several issues that need sorting out:

Biggest issue is the large number of dead links. You can see them here. Please see to it that you find other links or archived versions of the old ones.
In general: Please go through the article and put the names of magazines and newspapers in italics.
Lead: You don't need citations here.
Lead: He went from A to B just as fast I could. There seems to be a word missing here. Is that so in the source? Also, in the case of quotes, you should give a citation in the lead.
Youth: Among those in attendance, Ted Kennedy would in only two years be playing for Hap Day's Toronto Maple Leafs. I don't quite understand this sentence.
Style of play: The same quote is here from the lead, and again, the word as seems to be missing.
Style of play: would also kill penalties. This is far too colloquial.
Making the team: Is it really Madison Square Gardens in 1943?
Sometimes it's OHA, sometimes O.H.A.?
Making the team: some hockey pundits - does the source really give the opinion of more than one person?
Making the team: The last sentence needs a reference.
The first Stanley Cup: The last sentence of the first paragraph needs a source as well.
Same goes for the next sentence.
First Stanley Cup: was chosen the first star in game 3 What is a "first star"?
NHL's first dynasty: You should out "first dynasty" in quotation marks. The same applies for "Strongest team ever". This is too harsh a statement to be considered a neutral header.
NHL's first dynasty: was going to turn out to be just a "wartime flash" in the pan - also too colloquial.
Same for they clicked immidiately.
NHL's first dynasty: then forcing goaltender Durnan to go down he put the puck behind him to clinch the game - I feel that this needs at least a comma somewhere in it to be more comprehensive.
Next sentence: Is exciting game a quote? If so, put quotation marks there. If not, rephrase it, because it would otherwise constitute original research.
The Gordie Howe incident: both teams got back to hockey - too colloquial.
The Final Cup: You should put a seperate reference on the statement that Howe was points leader, even though one can find this info by following ref #166.
The Final Cup: was twice the hero - too colloquial. Same goes for heroics one paragraph later.
The Final Cup: Last paragraph: I would write it something like this Kennedy later said that.... Right now, the tense is a little weird to me.
Latter years: 2nd Team All-Star Team sounds repetitive. Is saying 2nd Team of the All Star Game or something like that possible?
Retirement: You should pull some of the statements together into longer paragraphs. It looks quite torn apart at the moment.
The quintessential Leaf: Was the statement that he never wanted to play for any other team in the sources given? Unfortunately, those are both dead links...
The quintessential Leaf: Fank Selke - Frank?
Face-off skills: The first sentence sounds like original research when you call his talents invaluable. That word would need a source if you keep it that way. Definitely needed is a source supporting the claim that there used to be more face-offs back then.

I will place the article on hold for now. Seven days to adress the issues, as usual. Good work so far! Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:@Zwerg Nase: Alright, looks like I'm done most of your recommendations. There's a few things I didn't touch though, for various reasons.

He went from A to B just as fast I could. is the correct quote, so I didn;t touch it. I did however remove it from the lead.

Hmm, then it seems to me that the mistake is in the source. You should add a [sic] here.

Some hockey pundits was not touched, as I didn't add that reference, so can'y say if it does. I have heard lots of praise on this trade as well, being from Toronto, so I'm assuming it does.

If you don't know if the source speaks of more than one pundit, then you have to rephrase it.

Was going to be a wartime flash in the pan was not touched, as I'm unaware if that was a direct quote from the source given.

Then you should put the quotation mark also around in the pan.

I could not find a citation for the "more face offs in Kennedy's time" claim, but I have personally seen that stat on TV broadcasts before.. Because of this, I added the "citation needed" tag.

Articles with maintenance tags cannot become GA, so you are gonna have to find a source for it or remove the statement.

Reference 38 was not touched, even thought it is a dead link. Reason being that info related to that reference appears to be vital to the article, and I couldn't find those stats anywhere else. I could remove the reference, but those stats would probably have to be removed as well seeing as they would be original research without one.

I replaced it with an archived version of the page. I would have assumed that that would have been the first thing you tried.

If that's too your liking, we should be good to go. Sorry for taking so long to get around to this. Spilia4 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Spilia4: Please see the comments above. Also, I saw you added more ^{[citation needed]} templates. These need to be resolved, otherwise the article cannot pass for GA. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zwerg Nase: Just finished up the last of your recommendations. Sorry it took so long to have this wrapped up, but glad we could do it!

All issues were adressed, so this is a pass. Congratulations! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]