Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Cup/archive1

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 00:11, 12 May 2007.

Stanley Cup

This is Wikiproject Ice Hockey's current featured article drive. Following a peer review which generated basically little complaints here and there, there is consensus that the article is ready. The article is still (yes!) unrated, and hasn't even had a GA review. The article is around 50 kB, has around 70 references, and has around 5-6 pictures. This is a self-nom. Evilclown93 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well add my nominator support, then. Evilclown93 15:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of cleanup and basic copyediting is needed to get this ready for FAC. The very first thing is a See also at the top of the article !! At the end of the lead is, "The current Stanley Cup champions are the Carolina Hurricanes." To be made durable, that should be "The 2006 ... " or "The 2007 ... " or whatever they are. Also incorrect use of WP:DASH, incomplete and unformatted blue links in footnotes (see WP:CITE/ES and please provide publishers on all websources, author and date when available, and last access date on all websites), no non-breaking hard spaces between numbers and units of measurment (WP:MOSNUM), and numerous one-sentence paragraphs. The article could use some spit and polish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the "see also" to ue the {{for}} template. The wording is awkward though, and there might be a better template or way to point readers to the list article. --Aude (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway we can get a "pro copyeditor" on the task. From the WikiProject point of view, this is one thing we're not that good at (or at least that's how I see it). Also, is the copyediting the only concern with the article? Evilclown93 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for "The current Stanley Cup champions are the Carolina Hurricanes." being not durable. I'm 99.9% sure the article will be updated within minutes of the new Stanley Cup championship being won. --Aude (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are there any other images you can get for the top of the page? The one that's there now is very poor quality...lots of blur. JHMM13 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been questions about the copyright status of the Stanley Cup and other trophies, regarding derivative works. I think the Stanley Cup images are permissible, due to the age of the Stanley Cup, but the others not okay. --Aude (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to the copyright status, I was referring to the extensive blue in the other image. I see it's changed now. Thanks, JHMM13 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it is well written and does an excellent job at explaining the Stanely Cup. Kaiser matias 09:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Modest Genius ^talk 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object Very good article, but not FA good I'm afraid. Call me a crazy canuck but the two US-government images are just images for the sake of having images. They have the sole advantage of being free and of good quality but they really have no business in the article. Pictures of lesser quality but higher relevance would be much preferable. I'm also bothered by the length of the article. In particular, the trivia section on adventures and misadventures might be better off as a separate article. Currently, it's about a third of the whole article, which seems disproportionate, and it's also not as carefully written as the rest of the article. It has a number of unreferenced assertions (e.g., the Sylvain Lefebvre and Camp Lejeune bits), short one sentence paragraphs and two bulleted lists. I would also recommend seeking the help of the league of copyeditors to tighten up the prose. Pascal.Tesson 04:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The adventures was a list rewritten by me (and I evidently suck a bit at it) . I disagree with the images part of your comment. I don't what is so wrong about having US images. I think they are important and they illustrate the Cup well. Evilclown93 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the image of the soldiers. I think the image of President Bush is fine because going to the White House is a notable tradition for the winning team. Clown, do you think you can find a free image of a player on his "day with the cup" that has been so "anecdotalized" over the years? I think that would be much, much more interesting in this section. JHMM13 14:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Object. Lots of spit and polish needed to bring this to FA quality; not ready. Lots of inconstency in ref formatting. Please pick one style and stick with it. Dates aren't wikified, so they don't show consistently, not all publishers are identified, there are footnotes that are only number links [1], and others that are just blue linked sites or URLs with no publisher, last access date, author, etc. Please see WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates. There are other instances where cite templates are used, and are returning errors. Please clean up and present a well-cited article. Errors in engraving sounds like thinly-disguised WP:TRIVIA, and is uncited. Solo years shouldn't be wikilinked (see WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT). WP:DASH errors. One-sentence paragraphs. "Arguably one of the most recognized trophies ... " ?????? Lots of uncited data; example — The first U.S. citizen to have his name engraved on the Stanley Cup is John Sherf of Calumet, MI. After completing his senior season at the University of Michigan in 1936, the Detroit Red Wings signed him to play the balance of their regular season and the playoffs. Sherf played with the Red Wings in the 1936 Stanley Cup Finals when they defeated the Toronto Maple Leafs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object—1a; poorly written. First sentence in "History" is: "Frederick Stanley, Lord Stanley of Preston, was appointed Governor General of Canada on 11 June 1888, he and his family became enthusiastic about hockey." I rest my case. Tony 09:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object: sections from traditions and anecdotes on down, particularly the last two bullet point sections, read as trivia (4); insufficient ref info (1c); no pics on ice?—one of the last two pics should be removed (3); one sentence paragraphs (1a). I didn't look too closely at the prose, but I don't like the second sentence... It would be nice to get the Cup on the main page but lots of work needed (maybe by July 1...). Marskell 08:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.