Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Art Ross/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:07, 24 October 2010 [1].

Art Ross[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Went to FAC a few weeks ago, but didn't pass due to lack of reviews. So back here again. Went through GA a while back, and had a few memebers of WP:HOCKEY look it over. Await responses. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no dab links, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2c: 2c is good. ~~"^ a b Hockey Hall of Fame 2003, p. 16" not in bibliography, did you mean Hockey Hall of Fame 2010?~~ (I was blind.) Are ampersands okay in shortcites? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are referring to reference 43, which is linked to a book, here. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was blind. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'm copy-editing as I go, and disclaimer that I did the GA review. If I change any meanings or generally mess anything up, please just put it back! Mainly copy-editing for prose and flow.

Lead

"One of the best defenders of his era, he was one of the first to skate with the puck up the ice." I believe this came from the GA review; I think it needs explaining a little more. As I understand it, this is a "rushing defenceman" which is a defender who carries the puck into attack. Could it be elaborated?

Added something. If it needs more, just say.

I still believe that the lead should say who considered him one of the best defenders, or it comes across as POV: it just needs "Critics considered him one of the best defenders of his era".

Modified

Is it worth saying in the lead what the strike was about?

Added something.

The sentence about the Stanley Cup is a little strange. Was Ross involved in the three victories or just one where he coached the team? If the latter, it is not really necessary to add the three wins. I've copy-edited the sentence, but it may need changing depending on what you mean.

That works well.

In the lead, should the part about being born and moving to Montreal come before the summary of his career?

Moved things around to eliminate the fourth paragraph. Its now combined with the other paragraphs while retaining the information.

Early life

I remember that it wasn't known why he learned Ojibwe, but is there any indication of how common this was?

Alas there wasn't. As I believe I said earlier, I would gather it was probably something that came with his father being manager of a trading post, but there is nothing supporting that. Most mentions of the language seem to just be more like an interesting footnote.

Playing career

Again: rushing defenceman needs explaining as in the lead.

Expanded it some more

"retain the Cup again in 1908 during challenges by teams from Ottawa, Winnipeg, and Toronto": This is a little unclear. If they are retaining the cup, when did they win it? When Ross played for them in 1907 (the chronology is a little vague around here). Presumably not, as Ross helped to defeat them in 1907, playing for the Thistles. Or am I just confused (it's very possible)?

I added an extra note at the end of the previous paragraph that should clear up things. If not, just say and I'll add more.

"After the Wanderers retained the Cup throughout 1908, Ross became the second player to win the Cup with different teams in consecutive years, after Jack Marshall, who won it in 1901 and 1902.": Again, confused about retaining the Cup. And it's probably a hockey point I don't understand, but if they already retained the Cup, how can they retain it throughout 1908? Was it contested several times? "Cup" gets very repetitive around here. And the flow seems a bit broken by the inclusion of the All Star game between info about the Cup: could it be re-ordered?

Reordered things and added some clarity. Should be better now.

Actually, reading on, the chronology really needs tidying as I can't tell when all these things happened. Are we using 1908 or 1908-09? What happened to most of 1905 and 1906? If he played in the Montreal game in January 1907, what about the rest of the year? Was the All star game Jan 1908 or 1909? If he re-signed for the Wanderers in 1908-09, how could he join the CHL in 1909? I'm just not clear what he was doing in each year.

Added dates that should clear up that mess.

Later, it says the 1910 season lasted from January to March. Was this a one-off or did all seasons follow that pattern? If so, a note at the beginning of this section would clear up the point above.

Added a mention of the season structure, though might not be enough.

How did the salary cap affect Ross' salary?

Added

The fight needs some context if possible. Ideally, what provoked it, and what happened to Ross afterwards. Was no comment passed, or punishment given? At the moment, the fact is a little bare and needs explaining. Did it affect his reputation, or create a poor reputation (as he had more than one big fight)? Ditto for the McGiffen fight.

Added note about the first fight, removed the second one as it is really nothing more than a sidepoint.

Ref for goals in 1912-13 season?

Added

"Ross, who finished with three goals in sixteen games, scored one goal in the first game, a Senators 4–0 victory, and though they lost the second game 1–0, they won the series, 4–1." Do these goals and games include the games against the Wanderers?

Clarified

Presumably the "neutral zone trap" was widely used, or influential, or in some way effective. Could this be commented on to give some context, if it shows that Ross had devised an effective new tactic?

Added some note of it.

"Games" is used a lot in this section: could some of these be re-written (e.g. matches, fixtures) to avoid repetition?

Cut down a few of them, should be better now.

Possibly unanswerable, but anyway: Was Ross as much of a rebel as it seems here? Was he a ring-leader of things like the strike or new leagues, or just one of a crowd? Is there any comment anywhere about this which could be added? If the info doesn't exist, not a problem.

Post-playing career

What became of the feud between Ross and Smythe?

Clarified

Could the records set which still exist be dated: e.g. As of October 2010... If they are no longer records, could a date be given when they were beaten?

~~:I need to go and get the book to do that, so it will have to wait a day or two.~~

Added

Why did the Bruins improve so dramatically, and can this be attributed to Ross?

Added some mention, but if more is needed I will add more about it.

Repetition of "winning streak" but I'm not sure much can be done about that.

Got rid of one, but like you said, its kind of hard to do anything about the others.

Any comment on his substitution of a skater? Did it become widespread afterwards?

Added

I may have misunderstood, so I've left it, but it seems that it says twice that Ross replaced Patrick as coach: once at the start of that section and then again after the rumours of drinking are explained. Could the first mention ("prior to the season") be cut or is there a reason I've misssed?

Clarified

"trading Tiny Thompson to allow Brimsek to play..." Did he swap the players? Or get rid of Thompson once he signed Brimsek? Any reason for wanting to have Brimsek over Thompson?

Clarified

"This helped the Bruins improve quickly..." What? The signings, the new coach, or the new stadium? How did it help them improve

Fixed

General

I think a little more is needed on his playing style as this is included in most sports FAs now.

The big thing about his playing style was being the rushing defenceman. Thats included already, and his defensive strategy was also mentioned. Not much else is said about his playing style that I'm aware of.

I get the impression that he was a very influential coach, but there is little about what made him so. Could this be expanded? Why did his teams do so well?

Will look up a few things, but details on that type of stuff from that era of hockey are rather scarce, so it may be difficult.

In a few places, he seems to have been both an innovative coach and player: a few examples are noted above, but could this be commented on or placed in context?

Not really sure what you mean here. The article mentions that he was important, and how what he did had a profound impact on the game. Don't really think much more context is needed, but will listen to opinions on the matter.

I still think the prose may need a little work, and I'll have another look in a day or two, but I am not a hockey fan and followed all of this article without difficulty. Just a few tweaks needed I think. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed everything here, and glad that you went through it in such detail, again. Especially glad that its done by someone unfamiliar with the sport, so any terms I used are not ignored. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

Copy-edited the rushing defenceman bit and I've said he carried the puck into attack: is this correct? If not, please revert it!

Good, but a tweaked it to be more accurate.

"He scored three goals and had one assist in sixteen games for the Senators" and "Ross, who finished with three goals in sixteen games in the season,..." Is this the same information repeated twice? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is; removed the duplicate mention.

What form did the Smythe/Ross feud take? I think a few details or stories would help to give this context and maybe tell us more about Ross. If they exist, that is! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added

"The following season the team greatly improved, with 17 wins in 36 games, to finish one point out of a playoff spot." I still think we need to know why they improved, if that can be explained. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looked around and can't seem to find anything that explains it.

Support per my last review and the mostly resolved comments of Sarastro. Secret ^account 22:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

After he stopped playing, he became a referee. I think this needs a touch more. Which years did he referee? How many games did referee? Was it at the same time as he coached.

The only record of him working as a referee states that he did between jobs. The League didn't keep records on who officiated games in that era.

"Early in the first season the University of Toronto hockey team was in Boston for a series against local universities." Was the team playing a series of matches against one team or playing a series of local universities? How many local universities were in Boston?

Modified the phrasing, but not sure how many universities would have participated, or how many games were played.

"and had trouble with the team": What sort of trouble did Patrick have? Disciplinary?

Modified

"First All-Star Team": should First be capitalised? If so, why is second All-Star team (for 1942-43) not capitalised? It is still not clear whether it is the first ever All-Star Team or the first-ranked team (I believe it is the latter?).

Capitalized "Second" but a little confused on the clarification issue. It says that he was named to the All-Star team as best in the league. Regardless, I added a bit more to it, so it should be better.

"which was introduced to help speed up the game" How did the red lines do this?

Added note, should be enough

There are a few too many semi-colons in the article. Some should come out.

Got rid of some

The only part which really clunks when you read the article is the record sections. I'm not sure I have any suggestions, but something probably should be done to make these parts flow a little more.

Should be a little cleaner to read.

I think the article is as comprehensive as possible and just needs these final points clarifying. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed everything from your review. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I owed Kaiser matias a copyedit on this article for quite some time, and finally got around to it. I have made some minor adjustments (mostly moving from British English to Canadian), but can find no issues of concern. The article is comprehensive, succinct and well written. I do have one very small question, however: "The Bruins also only finished one game in a tie, a record." - Please define this record as teams have finished with more or less ties in NHL history. Is this a team record for fewest tie games? Reso lute 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the tie issue. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely, I think. I suspect that the record for fewest ties has a "minimum x games" qualifier attached, as Montreal, for examples, had five seasons in their first seven in the NHL with zero ties. Toronto did that six times, and indeed, the Bruins themselves did not record a tie in their first season. All of these examples occurred in a time when less than 40 games were played in a season, however. Reso lute 03:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. Added the note on when they began to keep that record. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (with GA and copy-edit disclaimer): A good, comprehensive piece of work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is well written and comprehensive. Above concerns appear to be taken care of.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 13:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just on a quick scan, I have concerns pursuant to criterion 2b. The Playing career and Managerial career sections are quite dense and daunting to look at from a document design standpoint. Is there any logical system of subheadings that could be used to make it a little more approachable? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I broke each section up into two smaller sections. Should be cleaner now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images, please locate an image reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image review Three images are PD in the US and Canada because of their age, and the last is self-made PD. I tidied the Commons description for the lead image, no outstanding problems. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know nothing about the sport, but I couldn't see any real problems. Up to the standard of the two cricket FAs passed in the last two weeks, so it has my vote Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Inconsistency in date ranges: "At the conclusion of the 1914–15 season, ... ", but section headings like "1909–1918" (suggest shortening section headings to last two digits)

Changed

Could you improve the date easter-egg links so the reader may know why they should click on a date?

Modified some of them to be clearer

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed these concerns. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:02, 24 October 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.