Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kenora Thistles/archive2

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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2019 [1].

Kenora Thistles edit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Representing the smallest town to win a championship in North American pro sports, the Kenora (previously Rat Portage) Thistles are an interesting topic of early ice hockey history. Due to their unique status they've been the subject of multiple scholarly articles, which are heavily relied on here. Previously brought to FAC a few months ago, the article failed due to prose issues. A trip to WP:GOCE hopefully has solved that, though of course any further issues will be addressed. I should also note that due to my schedule I may take a day or two to respond, but comments will be addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a few quick ones, as that's all I have time for:

I'm seeing a mixture of singular and plural references to the team's nickname, with "its" and "their" both in use here. Pick one style and stick with it throughout the article. I personally prefer the plural form for teams that have nicknames which will be used frequently, but others may differ.
~~1903 Stanley Cup challenge: Try not to have Ottawa repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another, as happens in the first paragraph here. It's just overly repetitive to read.~~
~~January 1907 Stanley Cup challenge: "1906–07season" obviously needs fixing.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back from my other obligations, and addressed things here. Thanks for going over them. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - a few quick ones, I will come back for a more thorough read:

"The owners of the Victoria Rink where the team played, stated their intention to build a 4,000 to 5,000-seat replacement rink. This would make it the largest rink in Western Canada and dwarf the 1,000-seat Victoria Rink." Two comments / questions about this pair of sentences. First about the tense of the second sentence - should it be "would have made"? Second, and this is perhaps a quibble - despite playing in a Manitoba league, I don't know that many people would obviously call Kenora "Western Canada" - perhaps a more specific definition would be better?

It is more a quirk of Canadian history to call a place in Western Ontario part of "Western Canada." I've reworded it to "west of Ontario," let me know if that sounds better to you. Agree about the first part there, changed that wording.

Player names are sometimes wikilinked multiple times after their first usage. Billy McGimsie is first linked in the caption of the photo, and then not linked in prose, and then linked twice towards the end of the article in different sections.

Fixed

IHL is abbreviated, but the abbreviation is never used later in the text.

Removed abbreviation

""Although Kenora's experience of professional hockey was brief, the Thistles' early twentieth-century Stanley cup challenges [illustrated] some of the key issues surrounding community identity, town promotion, and the amateur-professional controversy in [that] period."[68]" If Cup is incorrectly not capitalized in the quote, should that be noted?"

That was a typo on my part (the source capitalizes "Cup."

MHA is not defined on its first usage.

I see it only used twice in the article, in the "1905 Stanley Cup Challenge" section, where it's written as "Manitoba Hockey Association (MHA)," and later on in the "League play, 1905–1907" section, which is three paragraphs later.

"Almost immediately after winning the Stanley Cup the Wanderers, who won the ECAHA championship," - this really makes it sound like the Wanderers won the Stanley Cup, not the Thistles, which as I read the previous section is not correct.

I reworded it, let me know if that's better.

I will come back and give a more thorough review. At first glance, there seem no issues with reliable sources, or images. Canada Hky (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Canada Hky: I've addressed everything here. Let me know if you have anything more to add. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to my comments. Images all look good and appropriate for the article. For sources - the two Dan Diamond books - should the publisher for both be "Total Sports Publishing" or did the name change between the two publication dates? That is the only other thing I noted with a more thorough review. Once that is cleared up, I am good to support. Canada Hky (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The full name of the publisher has been added. Thanks for going through the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the above comments which have all been addressed. Canada Hky (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sportsfan77777

I'll leave comments later this week. I reviewed this article for GA status. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This FAC has been open for over 6 weeks without achieving a consensus that it meets the FA criteria. Even if Sportsfan77777 reviews this week, we are still struggling to attract commentary. Perhaps it is best for the article to close this now. I would recommend seeing if anyone can have a look before this is renominated, either at PR or an informal talk page review. That way the heavy lifting is done before another FAC, in which case we might have a smoother run next time. This will be archived shortly and can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.