Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard Riot/archive1

Richard Riot edit

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I had come across this article and felt that it was in good shape to be a Good article. I added references and expanded the intro and some of the sections. I would like to know if there are any changes than need to be made to this article prior to going to GAN. Any advice on improvements to it, and a quick look to be sure I have not made any glaring grammatical errors.

Thanks, Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do a more thorough review later (ping me if I forget), but some quick thoughts:
- Neither of the FU images of the newspapers add anything that cannot be conveyed by prose, imo, so I suspect they fail WP:NFCC. Also, why no picture of Richard himself?

Removed the NFCC pics and replaced with free images including one of Richard

- I don't see any value in the template conversion of the fines into 2010 dollars. Seems unnecessary to me, and lacks context.

I thought that since I had used the template on the damages that all of the money values should have them. I have removed them.

- There are aspects of the riot that are mentioned in History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967) that aren't noted here: namely, the opinion of the English media, fans and players, Richard's personal appeal to stop the rioting, and his promise to come back the next season and lead the team to the Cup.

Thanks, for pointing out the additional information. It will take a little of time to incorporate the new information. Richards appeal is noted at the bottom of the riot section.

- There should be more on his impact on the Quiet Revolution, and the long term legacy of the incident.

Most of the references I found only mention it in passing, but I will dig up some more references and try yo expand this more.

Reso lute 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: I agree with User:Resolute about the images and the dollar conversions, and I'm too unfamiliar with the history of the incident to have any idea about missing content. The dollar conversions, as I understand them, depend on which calculator you use. In the case of small fines like these, the conversions don't seem important enough to bother with. Here are just a few observations of my own:

The Clarence Campbell quotation is much too long; by my rough count, it's about 275 words. My rule of thumb is to avoid exceeding 100 words. More than that is likely to be a copyright violation. WP:COPYVIO has some information, and WP:NONFREE has more, including this: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." I'd be inclined to paraphrase the essence of what Campbell said rather than quoting him.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll have to take a look at it and figure out the best way to paraphrase the quote.

The date formatting in the citations needs to be consistent.

The items in the "Bibliography" section should be arranged alphabetically by the authors' last names.

For book entries, please include the place of publication. WorldCat usually has this information if you don't have it in your notes.

Thanks for the link I'll have to find and add those.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the comments looks like I've got some more work to do.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 04:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can add from my sources. In particular, I have a book, Canada on Ice, that features numerous Maclean's Magazine stories about hockey, including an 18-pager on the riot. Hopefully I can add some from that in the next day or too. Overall though, this article does look close as is. Reso lute 03:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Anything you could add would be greatly appreciated, and although this goes without saying feel free to change anything in the current article you think could be done better. Thanks--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim comments: Generally good, but it was lacking a bit with regards to long-term implications outside of hockey in Quebec.

I started a bit, but I have a strong feeling that relevant material that could be added related to Quebec would be in French sources.

that was a big concern of mine as I was trying to dig up material about the correlation in a more substantial way then just mentioning it had an impact.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is short.
There are a few stubby paragraphs (e.g. after the Campbell quote; I agree with Finetooth that it should be trimmed, it really is excessively long)
There might be structure issues with regards to background information -- I think it's interspersed throughtout the article too much. I'm not the main editor of the article, so I'm reluctant to make really sweeping changes, but I'm thinking a Background section would be beneficial. What I'd include is a bit about Maurice Richard (previous incidents (so first paragraph from the Incident section), his cultural status, about his career a bit), previous ethnic tensions, and basically how the atmosphere was like in the NHL at the time (so perhaps move the cartoon if found acceptable to that background seciton).

I wouldn't consider myself the main editor myself (the article has remained pretty stable for over a year), but I think you make a good point about adding the background section. I'll try to add one but I don't know what my editing time is going to be like over the next week or so. If you want to (not asking you to btw) feel free to add it in other wise I will attempt to add it in a little while.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

background section added.

Images were really small before.

Thanks for increasing them they do look better at the larger size.

Hope this helps. Maxim_(talk) 22:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing comments: I quite disagree on the Campbell quote. First off, "too long?" "Too long" for what? Is there a MOS limit to which people are referring? Or is this just a personal preference? Secondly, there is no copyvio involved; the quote is from the official statement released by the league on the matter, and is no more under copyright than any other press release. Since this is the only policy-based reason proffered to truncate the quote any more than it already has been, the quote should be restored. Ravenswing 01:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm indifferent about the quote, I removed it because of the above concerns. As it stands the quote was sourced from a copy-written book, which I think the Vio claim is referring to, Don't know if that makes a difference or not (I tried to find a different reference for the quote and was unable to find a reliable source prior to changing it by doing a Google search and was unable to find anything containing the entire quote). I also understand the comments about it being long as you do kind of get lost in it. Right now I'm inclined to keep it out but if a consensus is reached I have no problem with re-adding it.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 02:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on readding it myself, if the only policy-based objection is the erroneous one of copyvio. Ravenswing 23:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]