Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992)

< 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:08, 4 March 2009 [1].

History of the National Hockey League (1967–1992) edit

Nominator(s): Resolute, Maxim(talk)

I am bringing this article back for a second nomination after the first failed in early January. Since that time, I've had three people review and copyedit the article as needed. Thus, I expect to avoid the litany of little issues that plagued this article the first time around. At this point, I believe this third article in the history series is up to the same standards as the first two, which are already featured. Maxim and I welcome all comments and concerns. Resolute 00:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref formatting and dabs are up to speed. --TRUCO 01:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the template above?--TRUCO 02:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Maxim(talk) 03:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this the first time, and am one of the three copy-editors who worked on this. After a little bit of fine-tuning, I find this to be a great read that meets the FA standard. The only changes I want to see are with most of the New York Times references, which don't have a publisher showing up. I think it might be due to the template, but I'm not sure. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is, unfortunately, due to that. The Citation template is very limited, however given I've extensively used Harvard referencing throughout the series, mixing the Cite x templates is a no no. It is the same reason why urls show up italicized. I should bring that up on the template's talk page. It shouldn't be hard to add in functionality to fix at least the publisher line. Resolute 05:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Never got a chance to review the article during its last nomination. Looks good, same quality as the last two articles of the series. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: All free images check out, provided we trust uploaders' assertions of "own work". The two non-free images have article-specific FURs which I find satisfactory; however, especially in the case of File:Paul Henderson 1972.jpg, other reviewers may disagree. I'll try to provide a complete review of the article within the next couple of days; as an Oilers fan, this is obviously my favourite era of the NHL's history. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My concerns are addressed, and I believe that this is of FA quality. Comments: I'm not finished my review, and am posting comments here as they occur to me:
  • "His plus/minus (net total of even-strength and short-handed goals for minus goals against)" Given the wikilink, is it necessary to explain the stat in the article? If it is, I think more precision is needed; the current explanation makes it sound like it's the goals the player scores that count, rather than those scored by his team while he's on the ice.
  • I'm on the fence about whether so much attention should be paid to the Summit Series, which seems to me to be tangential to the NHL-proper. There's no doubt that it should be touched on, and it probably deserves its own section, but the game by game account strikes me as possibly excessive. I also think that the section is written from a pro-Canadian POV (as a Canadian friend of mine says, he's watched the summit series on DVD and always finds it hard to cheer for the Canadians, given what thugs they were).
  • "...while the Soviets looked at the result with pride." If this is going to be here, it should be elaborated on, since it's counter-intuitive (I mean, they lost, right?).

More to come... Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you explain why you feel it is a pro-Canadian POV? I honestly don't see it that way, but if you can explain what you feel is introducing this I might be able to clarify or rectify. Resolute 05:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a lot of it comes down to the subject. While the Soviets won the first game, that seems to be the last time they do anything: subsequent games are either won or lost by the Canadians. Moreover, the Canadians "battle back" and unleash a "relentless attack". Besides that, there's extensive discussion of the series' impact on Canada (Hull being left off the team, viewing numbers, etc.) but very little about its impact on the Soviet Union (though I suppose Canada was very much a part of the NHL, which is the subject of this article, in a way that the USSR was not - that might invalidate my last point). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trimmed some of the skewed wording, but with regards to it being a bit more focused on Canada, I think it should be, as it's an NHL history article, and the competition between the NHL/WHA is an important event to note.
  • Agreed on your first comment, and removed. I've already pared down the Summit Series section, and while it does remain a little large, I am not certain I can pare it down any further without stripping it of context. Do you have any suggestions? Resolute 20:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, the game by game summaries could probably go. What's important to be in this article, I think, is the relationship between the series and the NHL, and the impact it had. I think most of the third paragraph and part of the fourth paragraph (the early part especially) could likely go, since it's dealt with just fine in the wikilinked article for the series itself. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the third, and I trimmed a bit off the fourth (now the third). Maxim(talk) 13:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Herb Pinder described the NHL to that point in this way:" Since Pinder's currently a redlink, maybe mention who he is for context (e.g. "Sports journalist Herb Pinder...")
  • I've removed a couple of commented out "please check"s from the Broad Street Bullies section; anyone know what it was there for?
  • I'm not willing to do it myself, but given the extensive coverage provided to international play in the "Summit series" section (and, more specifically, "legacy"), I'd suggest removing detail of the super series from the "Broad Street Bullies" section.
  • "...and lost over $2 million." In what period? The franchise's life, or its final season?
  • Do you really have to give so much weight to the Steve Smith incident? Do you think it's not already hard enough to grow up in Edmonton with that name? (Note that I'm probably kidding with this concern.)
  • The currency should be specified in the bit about the Gretzky trade. If USD, it may be appropriate to use Template:Inflation.

Still more to come... Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All points addressed save the $2 million figure for the Atlanta Flames losses. I think that was just in their final season, but will have to verify against the book I used tonight. As far as Smith goes, it is a very famous incident, and I think warrants the two sentences it got. Besides, you gotta give us Flames fans at least that bone. ;o) Resolute 20:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The entire "KLM" line..." Context would help here. How about "The Soviet national team's entire "KLM" line, which led it in scoring..." or something similar? (I don't actually have any of the facts, to the preceding sentence is just an example of the kind of thing that might work).
  • "European players made up 12% of the NHL in 1989–90, the first time that the figure topped 10%. By 2000, that figure reached 31.8%, and a record 123 European players were selected in the 2000 NHL Entry Draft." Sources are probably needed here.

That's it for prose; this is generally an excellent article, and I expect to support before the end of the process. I have an inkling that there might be some statements that don't currently have references that could use them, but I'll go through those later. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed on the first. The European content figures were sourced to an NHL.com article. The NHL very rudely cleaned out a very large portion of its archives not too long ago, ruining a lot of citations for us, including that one. I will look to find alternate citations. Resolute 20:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced the stats with other stats that argue the same point, and I can cite. Also, clarified the Atlanta Flames losses as per above. Resolute 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Per Template:NHLHistory, this article is listed as the "Expansion era" and the "Modern era" begins in 1992. Why is the 1991–92 season the cutoff between "eras"? The Ducks and Panthers were expansion teams only one season later. Alternatively, you could argue that the shortened 1994–95 season was the cutoff. I'm just trying to understand the criteria for the lede of this article, as it seems arbitrary without some explanatory prose in the article. The start of this "era" is obvious; the end is not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The cut-off was arbitrary. The first two eras are easy: The first 25 years for the league's early days, and the second 25 years being the Original Six. Given both ended up as quarter century lengths, I went with the same 25 years for the third. There is no great, exact cut off point for this, given that expansion past 21 teams began in 1991, while Bettman started in 1993. For that reason as well, I pretty much split the difference down the middle. The 1992-present article begins with the prelude to the start of Bettman's tenure: the 1992 players strike. Resolute 19:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I can see that, but if the choice was arbitrarily made on Wikipedia, and especially if we can't find a reliable source that defines the "expansion era", shouldn't we remove the emphasis on that moniker within this article (e.g. remove bold from "expansion era" in the lede)? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have no issue with that, though as an informal convention, pretty much the entire time after 1967 is known as the "expansion" or "post-expansion" era, so it isn't much of a misnomer. I'll think on an alternate way to open the article. Resolute 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I guess I'm concerned about the distinction we make on Wikipedia between the "expansion era" and "modern era". I would say they are somewhat synonymous, and as you say, I think the present day is still within the "post-expansion era". The biggest difference from the 80s to now might be the emphasis on defence versus offense, but there is no specific event you can point to for that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Sources were good last time, didn't see any major changes. Links were fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checked and corrected any remaining cites that were incorrectly made using the work parameter and ensured all publications are italicized. They should all be good now. Resolute 20:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my fault – I was unaware that the {{citation}} template did not italicize publications automatically. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:07, 1 March 2009 (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/History_of_the_National_Hockey_League_(1967–1992)&oldid=1138463009"