Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Henderson/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Paul Henderson

[edit]

Paul Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Resolute 01:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans of a certain generation have Neil Armstrong and the moon landing. Canadians of a certain generation have, what else? Hockey. We have the 1972 Summit Series, the final game of which nearly brought two nations to a complete stand-still. A Cold War battle for national pride, hockey supremacy, and validation of way of life. In the dying seconds of the final game, Paul Henderson scored the most famous goal in Canadian hockey history. It won the series, saved a nation's pride and instantly transformed him from decent hockey player to living legend. But what else should one expect from a man born on Lake Huron and today a Christian minister and published author?

Last year's 40th anniversary of the Summit Series inspired me to improve Henderson's article, and it reached GA status in November. It went through peer review a few months ago, and after completing another FAC, I've spent the last several days preparing it for your comments, criticism, and hopefully, support. I appreciate all feedback. Cheers! Resolute 01:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Bear with me, I'm a bit of a first timer at this sort of targeted source reviewing: I see one deadlink and no dab links or harv errors. Would love it if you used citation templates (especially as minor errors like the spacing errors in #56 and #80 are less likely to happen), but to each their own. Otherwise, sources look reliable to me (mainly just historical Canadian newspapers). Ruby 2010/2013 04:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh dammitsomuch. I thought I checked for deadlinks before nominating. Thanks for catching that. I've replaced all four uses from that source with others. And thank you for taking the time to review the sources! Resolute 15:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Generally, this is very good and certainly very readable. The coverage and content seems to be top-notch as usual. However, there are a few prose issues which need to be tidied. Also, and unusually for a hockey article, perhaps a little too much is expected of the reader in terms of jargon. There are plenty of links, but rather than have the reader follow the links, perhaps a little more explanation could be given here. Not a huge issue, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the series was viewed as a battle for both hockey supremacy and way of life": Although I appreciate what is intended here, I'm not sure that "way of life" was at stake here! Maybe something along the lines of cultural supremacy?
  • There is nothing on his early life in the lead.
  • "It was voted the "sports moment of the century"": By who?
  • "A born again Christian": Should this be "born-again Christian"? I'm never sure on hyphens.
  • "His father, Garnet, was fighting for Canada during the Second World War at the time and Paul was nearly three years old before they met": As the previous sentence was about his mother, this looks a little like his mother and father did not meet until Paul was nearly three.
  • "Garnet worked for the Canadian National Railway following his return and the family – Paul was the eldest to brother Bruce and sisters Marilyn, Carolyn and Sandra –[3]": MoS says that the reference should go before the dash.
  • "Paul's first experiences with hockey came at a young age in the basement of the Chinese restaurant operated by Charlie Chin": Perhaps elaborate how he could play hockey in a basement.
  • I am not sure how at first blush. It is probably a case of a kid picking up a stick and whacking a ball or puck off the walls. I'm hoping that Henderson's autobiography expands on this. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His father coached his youth teams, and at one pee-wee tournament": I'm a little uncomfortable with the use of "pee-wee" here because a) I suspect it is not widely known what this means outside North America, and b) it lacks the formality that should be found in an encyclopaedia. The link goes to "minor hockey"; why not say that?
  • "They married in 1962 and he considered giving up the game to become a history and physical education teacher": The use of "and" suggests that he considered this because of his marriage, but could it be expanded why he considered doing so?
  • Points linked in the lead, but not on first mention in the body, which is the convention used in the rest of the article.
  • "In his second, he took a slashing penalty on his lone shift.": This loses me, I'm afraid.
  • "Henderson estimated that he played only 20 seconds of ice time over the two games, but took nine penalties in minutes": So does this, and I think "ice time" is a bit jargony.
  • "using his speed and aggressive nature to score 10 goals and 24 points": I imagine he used a stick, rather than speed and an aggressive nature! Maybe "and his speed and aggression/aggressive nature helped him to score…"?
  • "He was used primarily in a defensive role and on the penalty kill": Not too clear on a penalty kill, but I suspect that linking is the only efficient way to explain it.
  • "The Maple Leafs offered Henderson only a small raise following the year": Following the year sounds a little odd to me. It looks like a typo for "the following year" but I suspect something like "after the season" is the meaning. Maybe clarify?
  • That is the meaning, but I was trying to avoid repetition on use of "season". After consideration, I simply removed "following the year" as it is implied that the contract offer followed the season. Do you agree? Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "European teams masked the status of their best players by having them serve in the military or hold other jobs affiliated with the teams, even though hockey was their only occupation, so as to retain amateur status": The source merely says this of the Soviet Union team, and it seems a little harsh to suggest that all European teams did this.
  • Oh man, I could go for hours on the level of corruption within the IIHF at that time, but it wouldn't be relevant. While I do believe it was most European nations (certainly the Czechs were the same), I have changed it to reference only the Soviet Union after consulting another source that also only mentioned them. But these are in the context of the Summit Series, so I may revisit this if I search out a broader source. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Henderson, like most of his teammates, were frustrated by both his team's play": As written, this can read like Henderson played for two teams.
  • "while Canada virtually shut down": Whatever the source may say, this strikes me as something of a wild exaggeration. Maybe reword to tone it down a little, and to make it more encyclopaedic. To be honest, the next sentence about offices and schools would seem to be enough by itself.
  • Amazingly, it isn't. Something like 73% of the Canadian population watched the game. But I did remove the statement and joined the Russian viewership with the subsequent statement on Canadian. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two teams ended the first period tied at two goals apiece, but Canada trailed after two, 5–3, and Soviet officials stated they would claim the overall victory if the game ended in a draw as a result of scoring more goals throughout the series": Canada trailed after two what? Also, as written it looks as if the Soviets claimed in the middle of the game that they would win on goals scored. Is this true? If not, when was the claim made?
  • "when Peter Mahovlich came off on a line change": Jargony?
  • I get the impression that his move to the WHA may have been a huge deal; I'm assuming some kind of commercial rivalry, and that "poaching" of players would have caused publicity. If this was the case, maybe a sentence or two on the NHL/WHA relationship would help the general reader?
  • "The WHA merged with the NHL following the 1978–79 season, however Birmingham was not invited to join the NHL": The grammar is a bit off here: however cannot be used like this; a new sentence, semi-colon, or a different word is needed.
  • "He was again offered a spot on the Flames, in part to help develop the team's young players, however since the franchise relocated to Canada…": Again, however cannot be used like this.
  • There are three howevers in the Atlanta section, which seems to be too many. Also three in personal life, where however is used incorrectly again ("…to become a colour commentator for Maple Leafs broadcasts in 1981, however Ballard…" and "...40th anniversary celebrations of the Summit Series in Moscow,[94] however he was responding well…")
  • Why is the citation for the statistics given in the form it is in the references, rather than as a reference for the table?
  • Personal choice mostly, and an unofficial standard I've developed over time on all of my FA and GAs. I don't really like floating reference superscripts and find this to be the cleaner solution. Resolute 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a good legacy section, but apart from his comment that he did not deserve to be in the hall of fame, there is little critical judgement on his career. How good was he? What did coaches/journalists/fans think of him? Also, can we say anything about his style or technique? Perhaps a little more is required on these lines, if it exists. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a small addition about his speed, shot and lack of puck handling skill. But as expected, nearly everything I can find relates to either the Summit Series or whether he should be in the HHOF because of the Summit Series. Resolute 02:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy to support now. The only remaining question for me is whether the lead is enough. I'm fine with it, but others may disagree. I think it may also need a check from a non-sports reader, but I followed this well enough despite having learned what little I know about hockey from WP articles! Nice work as usual. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Detroit and Toronto: One too many words in "It was came late in the game...".
  • Summit Series: "Henderson, like most of his teammates, were frustrated by his team's play and the negative reaction they received from the crowd." "were" → "was", since the word refers to Henderson.
  • It might be good to spell out the publisher of ref 78 (IIHF). Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • I am rather indifferent to the signature myself. I simply left it because it was already there, but have no issue with removing it if there is any concern. Of course, it would have helped if the source of the image were included in the image description. Removed. Resolute 16:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone

[edit]

Support generally on prose and accessability to a lay reader - looks like Sarastro's review was a big help in this department. I haven't reviewed things like sourcing and if the article had any technical errors, I wouldn't be able to tell. Couple of points for improvement:

  • Can a link or explanation be provided for what an "assist" is?
  • Second para of the "junior" section: the expression "clinching game" is used twice. Can this be varied, eg, "decider"?
  • "Detroit and Toronto" section has this: "but as the fourth line right wing, received limited ice time. He was used primarily in a defensive role and on the penalty kill." I know both "line" and "penalty kill" have been wikilinked, but is there any chance of telling us non-Hockey people what either of these things means, in a way that might advance our understanding of Henderson's qualities as a player?

That 1972 series story is a great one, and not something of which I had previously heard. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed the first two. On the third, I'll have to go back to Henderson's autobiography to see if he expanded on his role at that time beyond what I wrote. I'll have to get the book from the library. Resolute 20:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's what's needed, then okay, but it wasn't quite what i had had in mind. I suppose what I meant was: what are the characteristics involved in being "fourth line right wing" or "on the penalty kill"? A non-Hockey person has no idea - do these imply, for example, he was only a good offensive player; or defensive player; or not very experienced player; or good at hitting penalty shots; or whatever? That was all I meant...
  • On the former, this is actually a more complicated question than you think. A standard roster runs four forward lines and the top lines usually have the best offensive players, working down to least offensive. But in a case like Henderson, the reason for his being on the fourth line very likely had little to do with a lack of offensive ability, but simple inexperience and/or Detroit having at least three players at right wing who were rated as better players by the coaching staff at that time. So in that respect, Henderson being on the fourth line at that time doesn't necessarily imply anything about his skills. It merely defines the role he was asked to play at that time: defence-oriented. As to being a penalty killer, I am not actually sure how I could word that within the article that isn't already explained by the linked article to short handed. I am certainly open to suggestions! As to PIM, I would rather not change the format of the table if I can avoid it since this is how it is rendered on a few thousand articles. I did modify the lead to the linked Penalty (ice hockey) article to make PIM stand out. Is this sufficient? Thanks, Resolute 19:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the latter, what about using a 'hover over' text such as is achieved by {{Win-loss record|w=1|l=2|d=1}} elsewhere in the article? Yes there may be thousands, but there's only one you're getting to FA right now :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I just tried that, but the wikilink overrides the hover text. Resolute 01:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the first concern - would it help if I removed the mention that he was on the fourth line, and instead only noted that he received limited ice time in a defensive role? That way you aren't left trying to assimilate two foreign concepts in quick succession. Resolute 01:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rejectwater

Support with comments. I left a lot of comments on this article when it was at peer review and they were mostly addressed. It was a high quality article at the time, and many of my comments were quite picky. I think it meets the criteria, but I do have a few more comments. These do not stand in the way of me adding my support, but may be worth Resolute's time:

  • I generally agree with Sarastro regarding jargon, and did mention this at the PR, I think it's improved enough however.
  • "The game was also notable for Bobby Clarke's two-handed slash" - could a less jargony term or phrase than "slash" be used here?
  • "It was also viewed as a battle between contrasting ways of life, particularly in the Soviet Union, where success in sport was used to promote the superiority of communism over western capitalism" -- is Henderson himself a good source for this statement?
  • "An angered Ballard never forgave Henderson, and never spoke to him again" -- mentioned this in the PR, but I think this statement needs a more reliable source than Henderson himself.
  • The career statistics reference listed under footnotes is giving me a harv error. Should it be moved from footnotes to its own section below general?

Those are all I have. I'm not the greatest with prose, but found not glaring problems. Good work on the article, and sorry it took so long for me to give it another read over. -- Shudde talk 09:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you again for the review! I've tried to modify the piece on Clarke's slash a little, and pulled a second ref in to reinforce the battle statement. FWIW, that entire chapter in the book treats Henderson in the third person. I am given to believe Prime wrote the majority of that chapter. On Ballard, I did consider your comments from the PR, but I believe that the only two people who could state for certain that they never spoke again are Henderson and Ballard. This is one case where I believe Henderson is the best source. (In his latest book, he expanded on how he tried to bury the hatchet with no success). And moved the career stats into general. Hopefully that resolves your error! Thanks, Resolute 22:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Paul_Henderson/archive1&oldid=1138468774"