Wikipedia:Peer review/Fred Shero/archive1

Fred Shero

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

The previous reviewer had to drop out due to other concerns feel free to add additional comments, and continue helping me improve this article Thank you--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like like to take this article to GA status, but have never written a GA before. I would like to know if it needs any kind of rewording, sub section headings, or any thing else that needs to be taken care of before I take it to GA nomination. I had some one look at it for grammar so hopefully there wont be too much wrong grammatically.

Thanks, Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll have a go. I generally use a standard procedure for going GA reviews:

Coverage, in other words what to include / exclude per WP:WIAGA.
Structure. To group aspects of the article to other and often to order that so that (sub-)sections that provide information precede those that use that information.
(Sub-)sections, looking at e.g. prose and citations.
Check for broken links and DAB pages - see User:Philcha#Tools.
Check the lead last, when no further changes are expected in the main text.

A GA reviewer will expect that you will do all this before the reviewer, as a review is quality control, not an article improvement service.

As a nominator does not know when a GA review may be start, it may be a time when the nominator is busy for other things. I make an allowance for RL if the nominator requests this at the start of the review. I guess this applies to PR as well.

If you disgree with any my comments, please say so - I'm not infallible. --Philcha (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage (from Philcha)

(OK) I see no obviously missing or superfluous sections of the articles. When I review the sections I'll look whether these missing or superfluous content. --Philcha (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure (from Philcha)

(OK) I see no problems with how the sections are arranged. In particular, "Personal life" works easily in this article - I know of other articles where the career and biography influence each other, which can be rather complex. When I review the sections I'll look whether I think these are well-structured. --Philcha (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing career (from Philcha)

"At age 13 Shero became a Canadian Bantamweight boxing champion[3] and had a chance to become a professional boxer" looks superfluous unless the boxing is shown as a defence against the bullies at school (in "Personal life"). --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed - ~~His boxing championship is mention in a couple of articles. Would it be appropriate to mention in another part of the article?~~ I rethought it and a boxing title at age 13 probably isn't that notable any way.

"decided to play hockey instead" refers to his boxing, see above. So "decided to play hockey instead" stands or falls with where the boxing is relevant. --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

In "His decision paid off (hockey), and as a 17 year old Shero was noticed by the New York Rangers and despite his father's reservations signed a professional contract with them"
- "His decision paid off" looks WP:PEACOCK" --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

- "despite his father's reservations" is hard to understand without The Manitoba Sports Hall of Fame's quote "hockey players are looking for work when they are 30". But that's making this anecote longer, and I'd scrap it. --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

IMO the names of the players traded with Shero on May 14, 1951 are superfluous. --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

Coaching career (from Philcha)

(OK) I was concerned that this is very detailed. Unfortunately there are no GAs about coaches - we get to be the pioneers :-P However, the GAs about players are as detailed, in proportion to the length of the player's career. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
" Shero was never seriously considered to replace Emile Francis as head coach, due to his perceived alcohol problem" is ambiguous - whose "perceived alcohol problem". --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed

In "Shero decided to sneak out for a cigarette, before the press conference. However, he left the arena through a door with no re-entry and became locked outside, and no one knew where he was", IMO "decided to sneak out for a cigarette, before the press conference" is superfluous. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed and slightly rewrote.

"In the off-season Shero decided the he needed to coach the Flyers like he had coached his teams in the minors. Upon being elevated to the NHL, he had decided not to employ systems like he did during his minor league career stating that he had too much respect for NHL players. However, during the off season Shero decided that since he had the same kind of players on the Flyers as he did in the minors, he would use the same systems,[22] becoming the first coach to employ systems" is:
- Unclear - what type of systems? --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wikilinked systems

- Poorly written:
  - "In the off-season Shero decided the he needed to coach the Flyers like he had coached his teams in the minors" looks superfluous, as "he would use the same systems" makes the same point. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote

- - "becoming the first coach to employ systems" either is a typo or is a much stronger statement than the citation Fred Shero's Impact on Hockey Will Last Forever supports. --Philcha (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean because in the opening it states "first coach to employ systems; first to hire assistant coaches; first to employ in-season strength training; first to break down film; first to travel abroad to study Soviet influences; among the first to adopt morning skates."

In "The season also saw the beginning of one of Shero's trademark practices. Prior to a game Shero wrote a quote about commitment on the dressing room blackboard, and the team won the game. From then on Shero wrote inspirational quotes prior to games," IMO "The season also saw the beginning of one of Shero's trademark practices" is superfluous. Note that what remains should said that it was in the 1972–73 season. --Philcha (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed

Ray Shero on His Father, an Icon says "Doug Harvey during the 1968-69 season with the St. Louis Blues" was the first assistant coach in the NHL. --Philcha (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first, its the first full-time, Harvey was also a player on the Blues - I italicized full-time to stress the difference

I've found enough places where I think there are irrelevant passages. Please check the rest of the articles for other irrelevant passages. --Philcha (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I removed all irrelevant passages.

Coaching style (from Philcha)

Please check the rest of the articles for other irrelevant passages. --Philcha (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

touched up the section a little.

Personal life (from Philcha)

IMO "Over 40 years later, Ray Shero became Johnston's boss as general manager of the Pittsburgh Penguins – a post Johnston himself had previously held. Johnston often muses to Ray Shero that if it wasn't for him then Ray wouldn't have been born. It's a statement Ray Shero says Johnston never lets him forget.[11] Ray Shero and Johnston won the Stanley Cup together with the Penguins in 2009" is irrelevant. --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed most of the statement however Ray Shero is mentioned in the intro and the fact that both father and son worked in the NHL in some capacity is notable.

It looks likely that several sentences may be cut. If so, there will be changes in the prose and we'll need review that in a 2nd round. --Philcha (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over to you for now. Please let me when you're done, then I'll check for citations, prose, etc. --Philcha (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Looks like I have some work to do :), I think I can probably adress everything in the next couple of days and we'll see how it goes from there--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 00:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still reviewing to see if I notice any thing else that is unnecessary.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I think I have address everything here. I trimmed quite a bit and I think everything left is important but I could have missed something and you might have a different opinion.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mo Rock...Monstrous. I'm sorry for not coming back to the PR, I must have missed it in my watchlist. You can can a PR and GA review at the same time, so this PR is officially closed. Good luck. --Philcha (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]