Wikipedia:Peer review/Tiny Thompson/archive1

Tiny Thompson

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in taking this to WP:FAC, but I'm interested in some pointers before the FAC, and some input wrt WP:WIAFA cr. 1b.

Thanks, Maxim_(talk) 14:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, I've got a few thoughts, but I'll go through it more later:

The pre- and post-NHL career and legacy sections seem rather short. I would specifically work on post-NHL career. After all, Thompson was alive for another 40 years, there must have been something that can be said for that.

It's been really difficult to source it; hockey players who retired in the 40s weren't really covered that much later in the media.--Maxim_(talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no source for Thompson having the second most shutouts, and as a single sentence paragraph, looks bad. Perhaps add it into legacy or something along the lines of that?

Removed.--Maxim_(talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A heavy reliance on so few of references. It won't pass FA with references consisting mainly of two pages of a book, heavy reference to the HHOF statistics page, and extensive use of hockey-reference.com. There is more out there about Thompson, and I imagine most of what is sourced here can be found there.

I'll try to expand the sourcing, although I've been pretty busy recently, so it's not there yet.--Maxim_(talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that he was paid in US$ by the Red Wings? The early NHL tended to use C$, though this may be hard to prove, and porbably not to relevent.

Fixed.--Maxim_(talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and go through again in more detail in the next while. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious to why the Career statistic section is missing? A good read, but I don't like the current format of the heading. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 05:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added the stats, but I don't get your second point.--Maxim_(talk) 14:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]