User:Resolute/Hockey Statistics
WP:HOCKEY has 22,500 non-list articles within its scope. As of March 2012, three in four are rated stub class while barely 2% are B class or higher. Amongst Hockey Hall of Famers, organized efforts to improve such articles ("Hockey Mountain") have resulted in a considerably higher average quality. Only 30% of HHOFers remain stub articles. One in four is B class or higher, while one in eight is good or featured. Amongst the NHL's statistical leaders - goaltenders with 300 wins or skaters with 1,000 points - coverage is even better. Only three such articles are stubs, while over 35% are B class or higher. There is, of course, a considerable overlap with Hall of Famers.
| Group | FA | GA | B | C | Start | Stub | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WP:HOCKEY | 33 | 149 | 311 | 498 | 4518 | 17047 | 22556 |
| HHOF | 7 | 23 | 29 | 34 | 79 | 75 | 247 |
| 300w/1000p | 8 | 6 | 23 | 20 | 45 | 3 | 105 |
| Flames players | 2 | 17 | 8 | 38 | 164 | 208 | 437 |
-
Hockey Hall of Fame biographies -
300 game winners and 1,000 point scorers -
Calgary Flames bios
Calgary Flames players
[edit]Relating to my personal task force for Flames articles, I broke the roster down by season with somewhat interesting results. As one might expect, recentism is always an issue, as my work on recent seasons has resulted in a relatively high quality set of articles in recent seasons, including 1FA and 10 GAs from 2008-09 to 2010-11. Except for Hall of Famers Al MacInnis and Lanny McDonald, nearly all articles from the Flames' early seasons remain stub or start class. In some respects this makes sense, as the article on Jarome Iginla had 283,000 page views between March 2011 and February 2012. McDonald totaled only 70,000 and MacInnis 39,000. Current Flames Alex Tanguay and Michael Cammalleri were both around 29,000.
Through this effort, I was able to identify articles badly in need of improvement. Most notably, Paul Reinhart, which was an absolutely terrible stub article that said absolutely nothing about the subject himself. It had only a four sentence "personal" section that was not about Paul at all, but rather served only to justify the creation of useless redirects for his as yet non-notable sons. For those who like to believe Wikipedia is failing, that was a good example.
