Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fighting in ice hockey

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 20:25, 7 May 2007.

Fighting in ice hockey[edit]

Self nomination. I have put a lot of work into the article, and think it is ready for FA status. The article had a peer review here, and I also solicited feedback on the WikiProject Ice Hockey project page and from some individual editors who have brought hockey articles to FA status. --Mus Musculus (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional Support, very informative, and liked to read it. However having said that I do have a few objections. Namely in the second paragraph where it says "... to protect star players, who are generally less tough," sounds sort of like a 4th-grader sentece. I would recommend trying to write it some way else. Also in the same paragraph, where it lists historical players, I would object to who was listed. When mentioned are Clark Gillies, Terry O'Reilly, Wayne Cashman and Nick Fotiu, the one that doesn't seem to belong in any list of those four fighters is Fotiu, and he was primarily an enforcer, whereas all the others offered a consistent scoring threat, and I would argue that Cashman and Gillies aren't remembered for their fighting. I would also say that that list is very 1980's heavy when it says "historical". It is very important to mention pioneers like Lou Fontinato and John Ferguson (or even Red Horner), and then say Dave Schultz and Tiger Williams to get that feel of the Wild 70's. Just some suggestions but keep up the good work. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 23:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I think I changed these issues and it now has my full support. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 02:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I also have some minor issues with the article. In the thrid paragraph, it mentions that most players, administrators, and fans favor fighting, but there is no source to it. Also when it mentions Gordie Howe gaining respect by beating Lou Fontinato, it makes no mention of who Fontinato is; that will confuse people not familiar with hockey, as it did with me for a minute, and I do follow hockey. Another point, more of a comment really, is that you have several references listed, but only use a handful for citations. It might not be a bad idea to use the references as citations, but again that is more of a comment than a opposing point. Although it might be necessary to change the way the citations are written, but again it's more of a comment. So in conclusion, find a source stating most players, fans, etc. support fighting, and include a blurb about who Fontinato was and I'll give full support. Kaiser matias 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support everything I said is fixed now, excellent article. Kaiser matias 17:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome feedback, thanks. In the third paragraph, the sentences that follow the first go into more detail about the statement made at the beginning of the paragraph. Those are cited. If you can think of a way to make that relation more clear, we can edit it. I added more information about Fontinato along with a source - I was mistaken in thinking his article would provide the necessary context (it is a stub). I'm not sure what you mean about the references and citations - I only provided references for the citations used in the article. There should not be any citations without references or vice versa. --Mus Musculus (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over it again, and there is no sources explaining that many people support fighting, which is good. And what I was talking about references and sourcing is more of a personal issue I find with it, but like I said, is not anything worth using to oppose. Excellent work on a highly controersial topic. Kaiser matias 22:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Aside from the things that Croat Canuck and Kaiser matias mentioned above, the article is very informative, well-sourced and well-written. It should not be too hard to fix those things. Sportskido8 01:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enthusiastic Support I love the article. It's very well written and the topic will be a great addition to the List of Wikipedia Featured Articles that will never be covered in Encyclopædia Britannica. -- Y not? 03:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Contains images tagged as Cc-by-2.0, but the Flickr page does not support this. Pagrashtak 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean; could you be more specific? The images' Flickr pages specify that they are licensed under CC 2.0. --Mus Musculus (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure thing. You might not be aware that there are several variants of the CC 2.0 license. Look at the flickr page for Image:Norton Peters fight.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/davegroth/353859529/). See the symbols under additional information? The first one requires attribution (fine), the second one indicates non-commercial use only (bad), and the third prohibits derivatives (also bad). These are referred to as "by", "nc", and "nd", respectively. So the proper license is {{cc-by-nc-nd-2.0}}. Hope that helps. Pagrashtak 00:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed the offending images and moved a public domain image to the lead section. Thanks for the clarification - I admittedly find the Creative Commons rules to be a bit confusing. --Mus Musculus (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would a CC 2.0 licence that does alow derivatives but prohibits commercial use be acceptable in the article? --Krm500 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Such as {{cc-by-nc-2.0}}? That's also not permissible. This article could use a few more images, now that the copyvios have been removed. If you can't find any freely licensed images, you could ask the copyright owner of the images on Flickr if he or she is willing to use a more free license for an image or two, such as {{cc-by-2.0}}. Wikipedia:Example requests for permission may be of use if you pursue that. Pagrashtak 16:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am the copyright holder of one of those images, but I have a problem with wikipedias image policy. --Krm500 01:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Prose/Comprehensiveness. A couple sections read awkward to me, particularly the "Reasons for Fighting" area in general. I feel those sections lack encyclopedic tone, instead using a more journalistic tone, which is understandable, given the sources cited. Still, rephrasing might be helpful. But the main issue I have is the "Notable Fights" section, which is practically a trivia section. Bullet points are always a warning sign in my eyes, and I hate seeing them in articles... brilliant prose should be brilliant prose, and lists don't cut it there. It seems to me that the events described in that section could be given more justice than a bare list, and could be expanded into full paragraphs with more details. This 2007 fight in particular could use some detail, since it says that it's garnered a lot of attention and a call for banning fights. That sounds pretty notable and important to me! Worth more than a mere list item! The rest of the fights could also be given some fairer treatment. I would recommend the entire section be moved up into the "History" section, and expanded upon, in full paragraphs instead of bullet points. Fieari 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. I will look at the Reasons for Fighting subheading tomorrow. Are there any passages in particular that you feel lack encyclopedic tone, to give me an example to work with? I'm not sure I agree with you regarding the Notable Fights section. Lists have a purpose in technical rhetoric, which an encyclopedia article is. The rhetorical purpose is to succinctly convey a number of items that share the same format and purpose. I feel that trying to turn them into prose would result in something that feels contrived - like, "This happened. And then this happened. And then this happened." when really a list would be more suitable. The article is not really about fights per se, it is about the artifact of fighting. Does that make sense? --Mus Musculus (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Pending these points I've picked up, note some of them maybe due to terminology I don't understand. If they are just explain them to me and I'll disregard them:
    • Why are hockey games referred to as games in places and matches in others, just pick one. There's an instance of "matches" in the second or third sentence. I think this combines International and American usage perhaps.
    • Legal and illegal are used in a court of law, referring to rules of a sport that way is confusing. Maybe "allowed techniques" instead of "illegal techniques".
    • "High sticking" and "cross-checking" and all that stuff in the lead should be linked if it can be. You can link it to the sections in the Hockey article if possible, linking directly to the section covering them.
    • This whole portion of the lead is unnecessary: "this concept is articulated and illustrated by the history of fighting, the reasons behind fighting, and the description of the informal rules of fighting that follow" It's a self reference anyways. Maybe you could word it differently.
    • " games has been ongoing for many years," many is redundant, years is plural also could use a more specific number like more than 90 years etc.
    • The second sentence in "Reasons for fighting might need a source/sources.
    • "The NHL averaged twice as many fights during Gretzky's prime with the Edmonton Oilers than it did during the 1970s. [28]" This sentence seems to indicate that simply Gretzky existed fights doubled, even if true it's impossible to prove. Myabe word it different saying is often credited, is partially credited, etc.
    • "There are also times when players and even entire teams just dislike each other enough that fights frequently occur for no other reason. [29] " This isn't written in a very formal tone.
    • Maybe I'm wrong but the first time a "major penalty" is introduced it's not even explained or linked.
    • Of course there' never been any deaths right? At any level?
    • "Another important aspect of fighting etiquette is simply fighting fairly, cleanly, and gracefully." Could be more formal, and what does gracefully even mean? Aaron Bowen 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the awesome comments - they definitely helped polish up the article a bit more. I believe I have addressed all of your items, except for the bullet about the second sentence in "Reasons for fighting". The footnote at the end of that paragraph covers the second sentence, and according to Wikipedia's footnote policy, a footnote is not required on each sentence if that is the case. Thanks again! --Mus Musculus (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I haven't looked it all over yet but this:"Of the many reasons, the foremost is for retaliation." opening to a section needs to be fixed. It's not even a complete sentence. Reasons for what? This appears to have been an isolated error though. Aaron Bowen 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Mus Musculus (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My concerns were addressed. Aaron Bowen 04:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's interesting and novel, but the article relies enormously on just one reference source (the Bernstein book) which appears to be largely a repeated discussion by fighters of why fighting should remain in the game. The article needs more sources and more points of view. Also, with just one main source so often cited, the possibility of (inadvertent) plagiarism seems likely, particularly given that the Bernstein book is not mentioned in the article itself. Finally, some of the content just doesn't seem correct even to a layperson such as myself. The section on 'Fighting etiquette' states that "Fair fighting is maintained by not wearing equipment that could injure the opposing fighter, like face shields or masks." Last night I saw an advertisement for a video featuring hockey fights and noticed that about 80% of the clips showed players fighting while wearing masks, often when just one player was wearing a mask. Count Caspian 13:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your feedback! Replies:
      • I'm not convinced that the article relying heavily on one source is a problem - in this case, the Bernstein book is really the only comprehensive reference available on the subject. No one else has researched and written about hockey fighting at this level of detail. I feel that both the book and this article are well-balanced. Neither are intended to be an argument "for" fighting, but an explanation of why fighting exists in hockey and how it is governed and carried out. This ideology governed my entire writing process for this article.
      • Saying that there is a possibility of inadvertent plagiarism is not actionable feedback; you would need get the book, evaluate the possibility, and post examples.
      • Ditto for suggesting that content doesn't "seem correct". I wrote the article based on the sources I cited; if I surmised content based on what I see in hockey clips, that would be original research, which is prohibited. Your comment doesn't even really make sense since the vast majority of hockey players in the NHL, where most fighting occurs, do not wear facial protection. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interesting article. Well written and referenced. Well done! --Phill talk Edits 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written, well-referenced, fun article. · jersyko talk 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very ready for FA status. Good luck! Evilclown93 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Almost every section heading violates WP:MSH. Notable fights section is listy and should be prosified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sandy I read WP:MSH and I don't understand how it does. Maybe I'm not getting it, could you explain it to me? Aaron Bowen 12:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't need to repeat the word "Fighting" in almost every section heading. For example, History or Critism alone suffice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I had high hopes for this as it seemed a quirky topic. I'd like to see more references used but it isn't crucial (sometimes there aren't more references) and the list of notable fights seems like a reasonable way to handle the information in this case, but the structure and writing are poor and some parts don't make sense. If you can sort out these problems, I'll support as the core of the article isn't bad. Some examples in no particular order:
    • Jargon is used before it is explained: "dropping the gloves" for example.
      • Fixed.
    • Protection of star players is quoted as a personal reason for starting a fight. How is that personal? More explanation is needed at the very least.
      • That was a mistake - I moved it to game-related reasons. Nice catch. :)
    • Enforcers are said to typically fight only among themselves yet numerous examples of possible fight combinations involving other players are given.
      • Clarified. Anything other than enforcer vs. enforcer is a a rare exception.
    • European fights are said to be more violent because the penalties are stiffer. Those two facts wouldn't seem to be obviously connected, so further explanation is needed.
      • I did clarify, but reread - it reads that European games are more violent because fighting doesn't keep the players in check.
    • Averages are given as if they are straight statistics: "the decline of fighting in the NHL to .61 fights per game". Also, the reference used to support these statistics doesn't seem to quote them unless I'm missing something.
      • Revised for clarification. The source supports the statistics.
    • "Third Man In" rule is reintroduced after it has been explained.
      • Fixed.
    • "enforcer" and "fighting" are repeated when pronouns or synonyms would make for easier reading. I've cut a few of these.
      • I didn't find any more that I would change. Generally, specific terms are preferable to pronouns when any possibility of being unclear exists.
    • The second paragraph of "Tactics" covers rules, not tactics, so should have been in the earlier rules section.
      • Moved to the correct section.
    • Enforcers apparently respect other enforcers who refuse a fight because they are injured. Why would that be? They respect their level-headed approach to the risk of further injury? Or perhaps they respect their wishes rather than the players themselves?
      • Clarified this.
    • "Finally, whatever the outcome of the fight, etiquette dictates that enforcers win and lose gracefully." - are other players allowed to be bad losers? Much of the article uses enforcers interchangeably with players which makes it hard work out when something applies only to enforcers.
      • Clarified where I found examples of this.
    • I'd like to know more about the role of enforcer. I know it has its own article, but a one liner here seems too little. It seems as if their only purpose is to roam the ice looking for trouble. Do they have role to play in the team other than instigating fights, or is it enough for them to be able to stand up on the ice and punch somebody? Do coaches employ them tactically? Yomanganitalk 14:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Introduced a summary section of the enforcer article.
    Thanks for all your great feedback - hopefully this allowed us to close the gap a bit more. I believe I have addressed all of your points. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support All my objections seem to have been comprehensively addressed (even those I where I was mistaken). Yomanganitalk 17:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am British and I know very little about ice hockey. I am surprised to read the disambiguation as the first sentences: "This article is about condoned fighting in ice hockey. For disallowed violent acts, see Violence in ice hockey." It is not obvious to me from the titles of these two pages that they describe different aspects of the game. Does the ice hockey community really consider "fighting" tacitly acceptable while "violence" is clearly illegal? Perhaps the title of the article should be changed to a more obvious description of the article's content? Axl 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes in general fighting in ice hockey is accepted. I think there was a discussion in the peer review about Fighting/Violence. But violence referces to illegal acts such as using your stick as a weapon and etc. --Krm500 02:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, that is the precise reason for the disambiguation notice. --Mus Musculus (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support' Good article, well referenced, looks like a winner. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 21:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where's the obligatory mention of the broad street bullies? :) Raul654 16:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes! I've actually been looking for a great source to add something about them. My books and articles only have passing mentions. If you know of one, please let me know. --Mus Musculus (talk) 16:49, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fighting_in_ice_hockey&oldid=1138460658"