Wikipedia:Peer review/South Carolina Stingrays/archive1

South Carolina Stingrays

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've done a significant amount of expansion since I started editing. I'd like to see if it's assessed properly and would also like advice on how to improve it.

Thanks, Cjmclark ^(Contact) 14:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wizardman: The article looks pretty solid right now, and it should not have too much trouble passing WP:GAN after these issues are fixed. Here are some things I noticed:

I'm not a fan of having three logos in the article, as it seems like a fair use issue. The main one is fine, but I'd take out at least one of the two not actively used by the team; the Sharks one would be the one I'd get rid of since they didn't really use that name.

Done. I went ahead and removed the Sharks logo; while it's neat historically it was never used, so it was the best one to go. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"based in the city of North Charleston, South Carolina." It can just say "based in North Charleston, South Carolina."

Done. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1995, following dismissal of Scanlon's lawsuit" I'd take out in 1995 just to break up the frequent paragraphs starting with dates/years.

Done. It definitely got difficult to break up the use of dates, but I'm working on it. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add in more about how well the team did in various seasons. Stats and records are quite limited in this article especially early on, which is great for lay readers, but it causes some of the meat to be lost. (I've been hit at these processes for having too much in the way of stats/records on my stuff, so this article's already better then many in that regard).

Not done yet. Working on doing this without getting too heavy on the numbers. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. I think it's pretty decent...not too detail-intensive but not too list-y. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 07:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"which they have maintained to present day." to the present day.

Done. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bednar's two seasons were highly successful. In the 2007–08 season, the Stingrays advanced to the American Conference finals, losing 4–1 to the Cincinnati Cyclones in a suspense-filled series that saw 3 games (including the final) decided in overtime." add a cite at the end, plus I'm not a fan of the 'highly successful' sentence, as it starts moving into POV territory.

Agreed and done. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"and winning the Kelly Cup on the road in the culmination of a dramatic 4–3 series with the Alaska Aces.[21] Bednar became a hot coaching prospect overnight." I'd take out 'dramatic' (modifiers get a bit overused the further I get in the article), and the hot prospect thing would need a cite if a statement like that's going to be made.

Reworded. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like "disappointment and hope" as a section heading. I'm not really sure of a good alternative though.

This one was difficult. I've changed it up, but I'm not sure if it really works. I'm still thinking about this one. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"falling 3 games to 2" three games to two

Done. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "present day" section just feels like a summary, and by extension mostly a rehash of the lead. I'd move paragraph three to the list of alumni below, and while the other two paragraphs are fine to have in the article, I'm not sure if this is where they should go.
"The Stingrays management and ownership have shown a strong loyalty to their players and staff." I'd get rid of this sentence; the next one pretty much says this by showing examples anyway.

I definitely agree with these two. I went ahead and farmed the contents of this section out to what I felt were the most appropriate spots in the article. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole team culture section is sorely in need of citations.

Got 'em! Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The organization's mascot (from its inception in 1993 to present day)" Since they've only had the one main one, the stuff in parentheses can be removed.

Done. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs #25 and 26 need to be fixed; they're showing the url instead of the title.

Done. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have refs in all caps (Ref #1).

Done. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once these issues are fixed, do another look through for POV to make sure that statements aren't sounding outlandish. There's a fine line between captivating prose and sensationalism, which is tough to keep in check for sports articles. You mostly do a good job of staying on the right side, but there are a few spots where it crosses over. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! I definitely agree with what you say about prose vs. drama. There was some pretty outlandish stuff in here when I started working on it and it looks like I hand't quite stamped all of it out. Thanks again. Cjmclark ^(Contact) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]