Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Stanfield
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Fred Stanfield
[edit]... that Fred Stanfield was dealt in one of the most one-sided trades in National Hockey League history?
- Reviewed: Mountains on Io
Created/expanded by Ravenswing (talk). Self nominated at 11:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC).
There are numerous portions of the article, particularly the last three prose sections, that have few or no references. This will have to be addressed before we can put this on the main page. I'm also uncomfortable with the hook. It sounds like we're saying the trade was absolutely one-sided, when the article states that this was "widely considered" the opinion. I haven't checked the sources yet to see if one of them says the opinion was widespread, but if they don't it would be better to attribute such opinions in the article. The expansion and related time frame look fine (675 bytes to over 5,000 in under five days) and the sources appear reliable, with the possible exception of Torontoist.com, which I'm not familiar with one way or the other. Once the items listed above are resolved, I'll do spot-checks of the sources. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- There are already twenty references in the article; if DYK's current standard is for there to be an in-line reference on every single sentence (however uncontroversial or unchallenged, and something I've found visually ugly), I really don't have the extra time to devote to that. The particular statement you question is damn near the universal opinion of the hockey world, and considered the single key factor in transforming the Bruins from a perennial last-place team into a hockey power, but such a statement justifies providing a full four references, which is three more (for instance) than on the lead sentence identifying Wayne Gretzky as the greatest hockey player in history. It wouldn't be hard to find forty references, but I would think that if you have doubt about the statement, it would have been axiomatic to read the references. Ravenswing 07:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- My problem with the hook is that it's far too close to the New York Times source: "widely considered the most one-sided trade in N.H.L. history". Aside from the abbreviation and trade/trades, the end of these sentences are identical. As for the sourcing, DYK's rule of thumb is one inline source citation per paragraph. (Not per sentence.) At the moment, neither of the Chicago Black Hawks paragraphs are sourced (the second, as part of hook, should have been regardless), nor is the Minnesota North Stars paragraph or the two Buffalo Sabres paragraphs, or the first two in the Retirement and legacy section. These should all be taken care of. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- There are 18 words in the hook; eliminating "that", "in", "of" and similar leaves us with the player's name, the player's league, the event that occurred, and three other words - "most one-sided". Gebus, of course it's going to be similar, how could it not be? I'm sorry, but this comment, on the face of it, strikes me as specious. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- It seems to me we could address the concerns of both Giants and BlueMoonset by tweaking the phrasing of the hook slightly:
- ALT 1 ... that Fred Stanfield was dealt in "the most one-sided trade in NHL history"?
- This would eliminate any doubt about paraphrasing or fact vs opinion (as it's clearly a quote, backed up by citation), and is more direct as well. Thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- I applaud your effort Nikk, but it's a solution to a non-problem. There is nothing wrong with the hook to start with. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Changing it to a quotation would satisfy my concern there, but wouldn't change the fact that the one cite per paragraph rule is still being violated. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I applaud your effort Nikk, but it's a solution to a non-problem. There is nothing wrong with the hook to start with. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are 18 words in the hook; eliminating "that", "in", "of" and similar leaves us with the player's name, the player's league, the event that occurred, and three other words - "most one-sided". Gebus, of course it's going to be similar, how could it not be? I'm sorry, but this comment, on the face of it, strikes me as specious. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I have added these. Let's get it done please! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- The only paragraph I see without citation now is the one about his family in Retirement and legacy. If this is taken care of, and BlueMoonset is convinced that the hook is okay, we should be good to go. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Giants2008, I'm fine with Nikkimaria's ALT1. (I have struck the original hook.) I've also added a source citation for the second paragraph in the Retirement and legacy section—I found one for Vic's info in his article and confirmed that it supports Vic's sentence. This should take care of the sourcing issue as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case, this finally looks ready. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
