Talk:Miracle on Manchester

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miracle on Manchester article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ice Hockey

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

California: Los Angeles / Southern California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Canada: Alberta / Sport Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Problems with article

This article is a good read, but it is written in language that would be found in a book about the game or maybe even a detailed piece you might find in a newspaper or magazine. It is not encyclopedic, lacks verifiable references/sources that should be cited throughout the article (see WP:CITE), and there are issues with it not being written from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV). I hope someone can go over this article with the proverbial fine-tooth comb and clean it up. These are major problems. Also see the Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOS for more details. Gmatsuda 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is better than the three sentence article Gann Matsuda wrote. C'mon, Gann, you know it, you're just whining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.108.63.6 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write the article. I just added a few details based on what was already in the article. If the current version is ever going to reach GA and ultimately FA status, these problems need ro be addressed.

Next time, learn something about Wikipedia before spouting off on issues like this. You also might want to identify yourself instead of hiding behind an anonymous comment. - Gmatsuda 23:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that 138.108.63.6 was caught adding himself as a notable person on at least one Wikipedia article. Yeah...the guy sure has a whole lot of credibility. -- Gmatsuda 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His comment was about YOU. Whether he reveals his identity or not is immaterial and a specious argument. You like this little war, but you're not contributing to knowledge in doing so. In point of fact, you didn't do anything more than throw something nasty at someone who spent a lot of time writing an article - instead of support, you attack. Then you attack someone who criticized your comment (three times!). Why not add instead? Isn't that more enlightened behavior? You harm your own credibility when you behave this way. Do you realize this, and does it bother you if you do? Are you just angry that he replaced your article with his? Have you even contacted that writer? I happen to know you haven't.

You really spend too much time attacking people and not enough on the article itself - whose importance dropped by the wayside. Learn from hockey - get a thicker skin and do the job and ignore anything that could possibly be construed as an attack.

If you attack me, it's just more of the same. I don't care whether or not you do - I've learned from hockey and my skin is thicker than yours. I'm more interested in the ARTICLE. Get it yet? This is what starts these flame wars. Avoid them and just deal with the article! Isn't that more of the true spirit of the internet? You have something to contribute - so contribute! What's stopping you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.108.63.6 (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"HIS" comment? "HIS" identity? Don't you mean YOUR comment(s) and YOUR identity? It's clear that the previous message was written by the same person.

Again, learn something about Wikipedia before spouting off. My criticisms about the article not meeting Wikipedia standards, which you haven't even tried to address, are still valid. YOU are the one who made it personal. If I had the time to re-write this article (or just edit it), I would. Unfortunately, I don't. And why do I have to contact the writer directly? Doesn't the writer read this talk page? On Wikipedia, problems with articles are discussed on the associated talk page. If s(he) doesn't care enough about their work to check in here from time to time, why is it that we have to go out of our way to contact him/her? Again, it is is plainly evident that you have no idea about what makes a good, quality Wikipedia article. I strongly suggest you find out what that is before you add more ridiculous comments to this page where all you're accomplishing is further reinforcing the obvious...that you have zero credibility and that you clearly don't know what you're talking about in this particular case. -- Gmatsuda 20:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... Look, this is JT Dutch, the author of almost all of the article in question. I did this for myself and other Kings/Hockey fans, who are obviously going to be the only ones who will take time to search for and read it. I wanted something more than a short generic description of a game that younger fans might want to know about, or older fans might want to re-live. I don't expect a college student or professor to depend on whether my article on a first round Hockey playoff game would be written to exacting standards, nor do I see very many sports pages on this site meeting those same standards. If you or anyone else wants to pull this article and put up the three sentences that made up the original article (which by the way were also not referenced or sourced), this is up to you or them. I have saved what I have written here, and I am proud of it; I have listed my sources, which mainly are videotapes of the game and as such, preclude any use of footnotes. I will not make any changes to this page. In addition, I find it very curious that this article was not tagged until about six months after it was written, and that the history logs on this article are now gone. I didn't write this article to start a war or a pissing contest as to who has authority on Wikipedia and who does not. -- User: JT Dutch 13:49, 15 November 2007

Thanks for letting us know your feelings/intent. It's appreciated. However, I wouldn't assume that ONLY Kings fans would be interested in this article. And I never said that you shouldn't be proud of your work. As stated earlier it reads very well. The only problem with it is that it is not all that encyclopedic, which is what a Wikipedia article is supposed to be. Evidently, you did not intend for it to be that. So be it. All I'm trying to do is get the article to comply with Wikipedia standards so that it can be trusted as a reliable source of information. Sure, you and I can probably confirm that it is, based on what we remember from that game (and from the videos you referred to). That doesn't mean that the article can't be improved in terms of meeting Wikipedia standards.

Perhaps when I'm done with the Los Angeles Kings article I'll take a stab at re-working this one and getting it to Featured status. But that won't be for quite some time. -- Gmatsuda 21:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the article have not been addressed, so the tags should remain. In fact, I've added the POV and unencyclopedic tags because after re-reading the article, I have found several instances of both. I wish I had time to rewrite this article so that follows Wikipedia policies and standards. No offense to previous editors intended, but it is obvious that the primary author(s) did not make an attempt to bother with those standards. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no public access images of Gretzky as an Oiler, or Dionne as a King? This is an odd choice. Johnhwynne (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

I note that 63.166.226.83 has taken a stab at editing out a good deal of the stuff in the article that violated Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view. Glad to see it. Now...can anyone provide references and citations for the claims made and "facts" presented in the article? -- Gmatsuda 13:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention that not all of the stuff in the article that violated Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view has been removed/edited/fixed. But we're getting there. :-) -- Gmatsuda 13:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits of January 2010

I have done some copy edits and clean-up of the article, and have removed all tags:

Copy edits and clean-up were done; feel free to tone down the language further.
I have removed the "unreferenced" tag as the source for the hockey records is shown in the bibliography, and citing the source for each fact would not add to the clarity, but rather detract from it. Accuracy of hockey facts can be checked in several sources, both online and in print.
The play-by-play of the game itself was written by JTDutch using the videotapes of the games as source material. It is unlikely that another such written record exists of this playoff series, so there is no further source that can be cited. Anyone wishing to fact-check his take on the games could watch the tapes themselves, but for any Oilers fan this would mean a quick trip to the vomitorium. Many thanks to JTDutch for his article on this historic series, and to Gujuguy for his extensive edits in August 2008.
"POV" and "unencyclopedic" tags were added without explanation by Gmatsuda in August 2008. IMHO both of these tags no longer apply.--Diannaa (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]