Talk:Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup

GA Review

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 5, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail The lead section needs to be expanded. See WP:LEAD. Also, there are some gramatical errors throughout the article that need to be addressed. (Most of these errors have to do with the placing of words)

2. Factually accurate?: Fail Footnotes #5, #28 and #29 do not display the source information. I would suggest looking into the article and correcting it. Also, the "Adventures" section needs more sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Excellent work!

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Excellent work!

5. Article stability? Pass It is nice not to have an edit war

6. Images?: Pass Copyrights are both legal domain.

Overall, a very good article. After you expand the lead and fix the sources, feel free to notify me on my talk page so I can evaluate it again. Good luck with the edits!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Z1720 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much!! I'll try to work on it, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to meet the 48 hours... 72 for sure. Evilclown93_(talk) 01:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GA checklist

1. Better lead?  Done
2. Grammar? Hopefully  Done, to the best of my abilities, anyway.
3. Footnotes #5, #28 and #29?  Done
4. References for adventure section?  Done

Great work on the article so far. However, I still have some issues with the grammer in the article. One thing is the word "that." It is used throughout the article when it is not needed and makes the article longer then it should. I would suggest pressing Ctr + F and find every spot this word is used, and evaluate if the word is needed. Also, the statement "due to the fact" in the traditions section should be replaced with "because." In addition, the sentence at the end of the article is choppy, "While the Cup was on set, Jim Rome s radio show producer, and associate producer of JRIB, Travis Rodgers, posed with, and hoisted, the Cup." It needs to be reworded.

In addition, the paragraph about Kenora, Ontario under "Touching the Cup" is in the wrong section. I would suggest moving the paragraph, or delete it.

I am glad you fixed the citations, but I found some more problems with them. Reference #7 leads to a broken link. Someone will need to re-find the article or source a new article. Also, one of the paragraphs states that the cup was away from London England for 113 years, when the source states it was 114 years. In addition, I do not think reference 25 leads to the article where the source came from, and referencing a forum in number 34 is not a reliable source, as anyone can post on a forum. (See WP:V) Another article will have to be sourced or the sentence will have to be deleted. Lastly, references 10 and 23 lead to the same article. This is a simple fix as you only have to combine the source.

Excellent work so far! It is really close to GA status, and it is evident that a lot of work was put into it since the last time I saw it. Good luck! Z1720 04:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with a few of your proposed changes:

• Ref 25 has the Rangers curse in a sidebar
• Ref 34 is not a forum, it's a personal website, and it's pictures, and it is Travis Rodgers and the Stanley Cup, there can be no mistake in identity.
• Refs 10 and 23 have similar titles, but completely different content.

Other things I've done:

• Delete Kenora paragraph
• Delete paragraph discussed below↓ due to numerous concerns
• Try to use less of "that" by substing "which" in many cases.

Thanks for the second batch of comments!! Клоун 15:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For fixing the pre-subscribed errors above, I hereby grant this article GA Status. Congratulations, and good luck with your future edits :) Z1720 04:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mistaken

The line in "misadventures" (I think) that goes like "...they sip their brandy from the cup. When Denny goes to get his camera, leaving the cup resting on the edge of his balcony, the cup falls several stories to the streets of Boston,". That only happened in the show right? Not in reality. This should probably be pointed out as it may mislead some readers. Bsroiaadn^Talk 05:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough. If you think otherwise, you can change it. --Клоун 14:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kenora paragraph

I have placed the paragraph about the Kenora Thistles in the Stanley Cup article itself, under the Challenge Cup era, for which is better suited. Flibirigit 17:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why is the cup visiting a couple small Ontario towns (Port Dover, Simcoe, Tillsonburg) considered notable enough to warrant mention over the Cups visits to the thousand other small towns? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question... I'd like to see a list of the places the cup has traveled to in order to visit each winner during 24 hours since the start of the tradition. Is there some reliable sources for this or would that be too close to original research? At the time of writing, the cup earlier today visited the town square of Ånge, Sweden. I also heard on TV that it tonight is visiting a private party (hosted by Samuel Påhlsson) in Örnsköldsvik since his first pro-team was MODO Hockey. A list should be limited to Ånge in today's example. --Bamsefar75 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You know what Påhlsson did with the Cup? He served pasta to his friends from the bowl. --Krm500 00:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Errors in engraving

How big do we want this list to be? Should we include every single mistake, or just a select few? Flibirigit (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Select at most five, cite it well. It can be chosen per consensus at the talkpage or just arbitrarily and can be changed up once in a while. :-) Maxim_(talk) 00:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

At the moment there is only a cite for the introduction sentence. Would you care to chose which five? Flibirigit (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Plante's misadventures, the 1967 mishaps, the Pocklington fiasco, Deadmarsh (first correction) are the first three that come to my mind. Maxim_(talk) 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed some stuff... and combined a few others... how does it look? Flibirigit (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

What's with the Bush + military photos being the primary photos on this page? I could have sworn that this was a page about the Cup, not US politics. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Those photos were used since they have appropriate licensing. If you have different photos with free licensing, please add them. Flibirigit (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohh The Irony

I am going to correct it in a minute, but just thought I'd mention the irony in this, since it's under Errors in engraving.

Dickie Moore's named is spelled five different ways, and Jacques Plante's name four ways. Several teams were misspelled, the Toronto Maple Leafs was spelled "Toronto Maple Leaes" (1963), the Montreal Canadiens was spelled "Montreal Canadiene" (1965), the Boston Bruins was spelled "Bqstqn Bruins" (1972), and the New York Islanders was spelt "New York Ilanders" (1981)

Moore's nameD??

And I'm not sure about it (anymore) but should it read Montreal Canadiens WERE, not was?? Tydamann (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, "was" is correct. "Montreal Canadiens" is a singular collective.--Vonbontee (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Every player hoists

The color cometary on the cup said that the 1995 year was the first when every player hoisted the cup over their head individually and skated around the arena. Is there any truth to this? 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How the cup made it to the bottom of Mario's pool

Amusing first hand account from Phil Bourque at Phil_Bourque_6-3-09 courtesy of WDVE morning show. 13:52, 14 Jun 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakekpgh (talk • contribs)

Edit war

OK, I've locked the article for two reasons: editwarring of course, and then this will give a chance to determine what's notable or not for inclusion. There's also discussion at WT:HOCKEY#Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup Maxim_(talk) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of January 30, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Reasonably well written, I made a few copy-edits

   Large parts of the article consist of one sentence statements, veering towards become a list. I wonder if in fact this should be converted into a list article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I found a number of dead links using CheckLinks

   ref # 8 [1], is a blog, not RS

   ref #23 [v], YouTube is not RS

   references need to be consistently formatted, some are just bare URLs at present.

   The statement: After 114 years, the Cup made a trip in April 2006 back to London, where it was originally made contradicts ref #2 [2], which states that it was made in Sheffield. In fact it was bought in the London shop.

   A number of anecdotes and mishaps are unreferenced. It is the nature of an article like this that each statement would need referencing.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am going to ask for a second opinion on this. I feel that it fails criterion 1 (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

   I concur with the comments below. No work has been undertaken on the article since the review and I am de-listing this and re-classifying as List class. I recommend that editors rewrite as a list article. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I had looked through the article recently since I was considering reviewing it myself, so I'll provide a 2nd opinion. I think you're right on all the points you've nailed, and I actually question whether we need that huge chunk of one-sentence misadventure text; we could just as easily limit it to a few notable ones. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That large chunk of unrelated paragraphs in the Misadventures section bothers me as well. I'd suggest moving that out to a separate (new) list and including only a few of the major events in this article, much as Wizardman suggests. So far as I'm concerned the presence of that section in its present form alone is sufficient for the article to fail the "well written" criterion. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That section is sort of the point of this entire article. It could probably be converted into better prose/paragraphs. But it definitely should not be cut. -DJSasso (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the article has to be rewritten as a list. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080312014615/http://www.nbcsports.com:80/portal/site/nbcsports/menuitem.638d19999a04c092ae6c6210493c2d04/?vgnextoid=b1f16544ba114110VgnVCM10000075c1d240RCRD to http://www.nbcsports.com/portal/site/nbcsports/menuitem.638d19999a04c092ae6c6210493c2d04/?vgnextoid=b1f16544ba114110VgnVCM10000075c1d240RCRD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mq4TUogx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhl.com%2Fcup%2Ffun_facts.html to http://www.nhl.com/cup/fun_facts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927195227/http://www.hhof.com/html/exSCJ_13.shtml to http://www.hhof.com/html/exSCJ_13.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817184053/http://headtothe.net/nhl/the-canucks-are-in-the-finals/ to http://headtothe.net/nhl/the-canucks-are-in-the-finals/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)