Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Jersey Devils

New Jersey Devils[edit]

This article has come a very long way since I last nominated it. It has passed GA-status and now contains everything a featured article should have, including almost 50 sources and lots of good stuff that the Patriots and Bears articles have incorporated in them. --Sportskido8 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per nom. --Sportskido8 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a New Jerseyan and a sports fanatic (though I'm not too big on hockey), I was ready to critique this one somewhat harshly. However, I can't find any real problems. There's a bit of enencyclopedic prose in places (I made one correction myself), but everything is very well-sourced, all of the images are illustrative and contain fair-use rationale, the lead is good, the article is broken down into sections in an excellent fashion, the prose is generally fine (and the writing is completely neutral), and the article is extremely comprehensive. My only genuine concern is that there are too many red links, especially for the owner, who does not (but should) have his own article. -- Kicking222 22:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You motivated me to finally start Vanderbeek's article. I also created stubs for the two redlinked head coaches. There's only one redlink left in the article, and that's a relatively non-notable player. – flamurai (t) 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Man, that stub is so good, it almost persuaded me to add "strong" to my "support". -- Kicking222 03:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As someone who's done some work on this page with Sportskido8, I'm happy to see it come this far. Everything looks as it should, and perhaps we can start work on another hockey team page once this one is done (methinks the Original Six teams would do well to have extensive articles). Anthony Hit me up... 02:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support... but could use a bit of help with the overall flow. I did fix a couple of sentences but the prose isn't exactly brilliant. Still, impressive article with lots of nice stuff without being overly detailed. One thing that should be mentioned (although one would probably need a reference) is that Lemaire's implementation of the trap was so successful in New Jersey that the whole league started to play it. Which also helps explain why they were viewed as the source of all evil in the NHL at some point. Also, one could perhaps point out that Lamoriello is extremely respected within the league. Again, there's an issue of finding a good reference but his reputation in hockey is very very good. (And I'm not a Devils fan). Pascal.Tesson 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dont know that much about the topic but the layout, flow, and general apperance of the article is beyonf reproach. -Husnock 10:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I am a Ducks fans. It's still nice to see such an excellent article on an Ice Hockey team. Well Done.--S kully Collins ^Edits 15:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, noting that the article has been very extensively referenced. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very comprehensive, beyond that of a good article. Hello32020 20:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is pretty good, but I think can be more comprehensive (such as sports/financial side of things). Despite the Devils successes on the ice, it seems their attendance is rather poor. [1] What is the value of the franchise? Is the owner turning a profit with the team now? How much revenue is the team getting each year? How about player salaries? Television deals? Perhaps, we need some more details on the financing of the Newark Arena? These are some aspects that I think can be covered better. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Devils used to be the Patrick Division, right? --Aude (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A couple more things I can think of that deserve mention...
  - I recall after the Devils won the Stanley Cup in 1995, there was a bitter dispute between the Devils' owner and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority over the team's lease at the Brendan Byrne Arena. McMullen made serious threats to relocate the team to Nashville.
  - ~1997/98, McMullen put forth plans to build a new arena in Hoboken.
- I remember these were in the newspapers a lot back then, so if anyone has access to any newspaper archive database/service, I think that would be a good place to look. Some discussion of this aspect of the NJ Devils franchise history, I think, would add a lot to the article. --Aude (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right. I was in attendance at the 1995 Stanley Cup Finals and we would chant things like "Nashville sucks!" when Christie Whitman, former NJ Governor and continuing Devils fan, would enter the arena. Nothing ever came of it, though, so I'm not sure if it's absolutely necessary. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it says something about the viability of the market. If the team wasn't so successful on the ice, what might attendance be? I know the owner and general manager have also been very good at managing the team's finances, putting a good team on the ice without spending a whole lot of money over the years. (e.g. while the Rangers spent huge amounts for big-name stars, they struggled) This aspect about the Devils is something important, I think. This is somewhat similar to what the Oakland Athletics did (see Moneyball). --Aude (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just for the record, it is mentioned somewhat in the article with a link to a story that explains it. JHMM13 (T | C) 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why is the Devils logo a .gif? Neutrality^talk 02:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume it's just how all the NHL logos were originally uploaded. – flamurai (t) 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice to see a good hockey article. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment although I supported the move to FA status, I have to say that Aude makes a solid case about the article not being comprehensive. I just have to agree and the article should probably adress this before this debate is closed. On the other hand, it's important to keep it concise. It's one of the articles strongpoints that it's not overly verbose. Pascal.Tesson 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]