Wikipedia:Peer review/Vegas Golden Knights/archive1

Vegas Golden Knights

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

Article's already achieved GA status, but I'm curious as to how close it is/how much work it might need for FAC and would appreciate any feedback. The Kip 01:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am interested in taking a go at a review. But I cannot commit completely, because the article is massive and will take up a lot of time. Matarisvan (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take all the time you need, any feedback at this point is appreciated and I'm in no rush to make it a FAC. The Kip 06:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: It has been over a month since this has been opened, and there has been no response. Are you still interested in receiving feedback? Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’d still like to see what needs to be done before getting it to FAC. The Kip 16:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Kip: Since you are still working on your first successful WP:FAC, I suggest that you seek a WP:FAM who can comment in this PR. I also suggest posting on the talk pages of Wikiprojects that are attached to this article, asking for comments. Lastly, I suggest commenting on FACs now to build goodwill amongst the FAC reviewers and help with your understanding of the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

Did an image review first, will look at the infobox and sources next.

Image review:

I'd be very careful including the logo and jerseys. I see the GA reviewer did not comment on this, but it could be a problem at FAC. The expert on this is Nikkimaria, so you should ask at their talk page, they could comment here too.
Your alt texts for the images are great, perhaps too long at places but that is a matter of opinion. For the images of players early on in the article, I would recommend adding the name of the team the match was against. I see you have done this for the images later on in the article, so why not for the earlier ones? Do we not know what teams they were playing against?

This is all for now, I will be back soon. Cheers. Matarisvan (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @The Kip, checking in, you there? Matarisvan (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late response, this and the associated updates/concerns slipped my mind. I’ll take care of them soon. The Kip 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consult Nikkimaria on that.
I added the opponent details to the earlier photos - as they weren't in-game photos like the later three, I didn't consider it relevant, but it's not an issue to add them.

The Kip 04:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo and jerseys are pretty much standard with all NHL team articles. dannymusiceditor ^oops 05:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any FA class NHL articles which have those? If yes then we can pass over this. Matarisvan (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Flames and New Jersey Devils appear to be the only ones, albeit they were promoted quite a while ago. NJD had both the logo and uniform in it when it was reviewed and kept as an FA in 2015, though. The Kip 09:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Flames seem to have an alternate logo and the article uses the same fair usw rationale for both of them. That said, it has been 9 years since that article was reviewed, policies have changed since then. Also, do NJ Devils not have an alternate logo? I just skimmed through the article and could not see one. Matarisvan (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Devils don’t - I was confused and believed the rationale issue was with the uniforms, not the alternate logo. The Kip 19:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the issue is resolved, I will be looking at the body and lead now. Matarisvan (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]