Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ottawa Senators (original)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:05, 25 January 2010 [1].

Ottawa Senators (original) edit

Nominator(s): Alaney2k (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. I think the team which had a long and proud history is fully covered. Alaney2k (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing out wp:alt. I was completely unaware of that. I've added the alt text to the images. Alaney2k (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for doing that, but I'm afraid the alt text needs quite a bit of work. Most of it just repeats the caption, but alt text is not supposed to duplicate what's in the caption; see WP:ALT#Repetition. Also, much of the material in the alt text is not verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the images. Finally, please see WP:ALT#Proper names for why alt text typically should not contain proper names. You might want to read the introduction to WP:ALT, as well as WP:ALT#Essence and WP:ALT#Portraits, for more advice about what to put in. Eubulides (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, I worked on it too fast without study. Even after 3 yrs on Wikipedia, there is still more to learn. Thanks for the pointers, I will get this done. Alaney2k (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have worked on the alts. I think they are good now. I tested them with my own resident non-expert, my son. :-) Alaney2k (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for doing that; it looks very good now. (And please thank your son too.) Eubulides (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'd like to go through the article and clean it up a bit if I get an opportunity. That way, FAC won't be clogged any futher with my extensive prose nit-picks. One thing I will point you to is in the references: ref 77 has no publisher (appears to be the NHL website). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should I withdraw the nomination? This is the first article I've submitted for FA status. Alaney2k (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not what I meant to imply at all. I was attempting to offer help. Even in great articles, I often find a lot of picky stuff. That is especially true when a given article is lengthy, like this one. Sometimes I'd rather do it myself instead of clogging up the whole of FAC with my comments; that goes double when we're around 60 articles. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Farrell ref needs publisher. (Looks like this book?)
    • What is current ref 32 ""the most storied of all Stanley Cup challenges", Holzman and Nieforth, p. 54"? Looks like it's missing a book title somewhere...
I've updated this. It is referring to a book in the references, is a short form not okay? Alaney2k (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed up the references and citations. Would using the words "by 1930" be acceptable in a FA instead of using "for the first time in 1929-30"? It might be difficult to find a precise reference for citing. I have no problems with nhluniforms.com. Alaney2k (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show why the nhluniforms site meets WP:RS. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion at the RS noticeboard. I will look for another source. Alaney2k (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the reference, I found a source in the Kitchen(2008) book. Alaney2k (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning oppose Some of the number ranges need their hyphens converted to dashes like the rest. I'm a bit concerned by the overwhelming reliance on Coleman in the history section. Other authors may pick up things that he may not, and his book was about the Stanley Cup at large, not this team. It may be difficult to satisfy NPOV if the major part of the article in mono-sourced. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for reading the article and getting involved. Coleman is considered a reliable source, and I think, impartial. The early era especially, is not well-covered by literature. Most history of hockey focus on 1917 and later. I will look into using other references. It is a good point. ʘ alaney2k talkʘ 15:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reduced the number to 45, which is one quarter of the 160 or so cites. Is that still too many? The cites are mostly to source the stats for seasons before the NHL. ʘ alaney2k talkʘ 17:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Beyond that, the reliability on Coleman is near-to-universal in the hockey world; before him, no one had done any critical and sourced research into the early days of hockey, and just about every authority who's worked on that period thereafter cites and/or copies him. I could, for some of the later years, substitute the likes of Brian McFarlane (who's the honorary president of the Society for International Hockey Research), whose own work covering those years outright admits that he "leaned heavily" on Coleman.  RGTraynor  17:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There; sixteen cites from McFarlane's 50 Years Of Hockey.  RGTraynor  19:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should mention that I entered the endashes using Alt 0 1 5 0 on my keyboard. I understood this to be an acceptable way to enter the long dashes. Is that not the case? ʘ alaney2k talkʘ 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Ottawa Senators, officially the Ottawa Hockey Club (Ottawa HC), was an amateur, later becoming a professional, men's ice hockey team based in Ottawa, Ontario,"... This opening sentence is clumsy. "The Ottawa Senators, officially the Ottawa Hockey Club (Ottawa HC), was an amateur men's ice hockey team based in Ottawa, Ontario, that became professional in [year] ...". If it's compulsory to include the province (I have no idea why), it should not be linked. Ottawa is quite enough, and has a link to Ontario within it.
  • The size of most of the images needs to be boosted to between 220 and 240px. Tony (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2010 (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/Ottawa_Senators_(original)/archive1&oldid=1089083968"