Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maurice Richard/archive1

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 by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Maurice Richard[edit]

Nominator(s): Resolute 00:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Richard is one of hockey's greatest legends. The first player in NHL history to score 50 goals in one season and the first to reach 500 for his career. An eight time Stanley Cup champion, and a member of both the Canadian Sports and Hockey Halls of Fame. He is also a cultural icon across the country, but primarily in Quebec where his on-ice outburst and subsequent suspension in 1955 precipitated the Richard Riot, today regarded as a violent manifestation of Francophone Quebec's dissatisfaction with its place in Anglophone Canada. Though apolitical himself, Richard's legacy was cemented when he was made the subject of Roch Carrier's legendary short story, The Hockey Sweater.

I was asked several months ago to try and expand Henri Richard's article from a poor stub into something better - and at some point I still will - but I was instead inspired to write about Henri's famous brother. It reached GA status in May and I have run periodic copyedits since to tighten the prose. I believe it is now FA quality, and I hope the community will agree. Cheers! Resolute 00:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Richard was one of my childhood heroes. The least I can do is review this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Maurice richard profile.jpg - How do we know that this is PD, if the date is unknown? If it's from 1950, then it's not expired. Also, what's the US copyright on this image?
    • The Library and Archives Canada specifically notes that the copyright is expired. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I noticed that. I'd mark "Before 1949" if then, so the question doesn't have to be asked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could, but that would be a guess. It may be that the creator died in the early 50s, or that the creator explicitly released it PD when it was donated to LAC.
  • File:Maurice Richard 1945.jpg - How does this meet URAA criteria #2? You'd need to know where it was first published for that
    • The image would have fallen into the public domain in Canada on the URAA date. I don't believe URAA applies to it. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's criteria 3. What about criteria 2? Unless you know the original publication, or at least an early publication, then it would be difficult to confirm. One way would be to see if copyright was registered in the US (doubtful, but possible) in the year the image was photographed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The online records extend only as far back as 1978, and there is no record from that date forward. Same with the image below. Resolute 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Maurice Richard and Toe Blake.jpg - This too. To know if it meets URAA criteria two, we need to know where it was first published (i.e. the publication).
    • Same as above. The image was already PD in Canada on the URAA date. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Henry and richard.jpg needs to be downsampled to meet the NFCC.
    • Will do. Is there any specific resolution limit, or is this arbitrary? The FUR should be improved, I notice, and I will do that also. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:IMAGERES recommends 100k pixels maximum (which for this file would be would be a bit smaller), though the current 300 wide is acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Richard sculpture.JPG should note the copyright of the statue as well ({{FoP-Canada}} on Commons)
  • File:Hhof maurice richard.jpg - Is this trophy given to the teams (like the Stanley Cup) or does it stay put? That'll affect if it meets the FoP criteria or not.
    • All of these trophies are on permanent public display at the HHOF, though they (or copies of same) do travel periodically. But again, always maintained as public exhibits. I believe it easily meets Canadian FOP requirements. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they are on "permanent" (for the life of the object) public display, I agree. This should be okay; the FoP template doesn't mention it having to be outdoors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Maurice Richard jersey.JPG - Fine — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: A lot of your harv references are broken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose comments
    • Is the Pocket Rocket really worth mentioning in the second sentence? I'd push Henri back to the second paragraph, maybe
      • Removed; It was added by another editor after I started this FAC. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really don't like the lead. It's all his achievements, none of his life. I mean, he was more than just his legacy. You don't mention how he rose up from poverty, or how he was fairly injury prone... and his famous temper is couched in a much more discrete term ("intense")
    • In one league, he led his team to three consecutive championships and scored 133 of his team's 144 goals in the 1938–39 season. - which team?
    • and resulted in his famously being named first, second and third star of the game. - what resulted in this?
    • after he criticized Campbell in a weekly newspaper column with his byline. - is "with his byline" really necessary here?
      • See discussion below with Issacl. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it's ghostwritten, is it necessarily him criticizing Campbell? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The citation says Richard never tried to hide behind his ghost, so it implies he tacitly agreed with the statement. isaacl (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • And Campbell certainly took it as Richard's words, thus the $1000 bond. Perhaps our best statement is that Richard "co-wrote" the article? Resolute 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I edited the phrase to call it "his ... column", which I think is sufficiently open-ended to cover the situation (and what the general public would think of a ghostwritten column). Absent additional information on the extent of Richard's involvement with the column, I think it's accurate enough for this context. isaacl (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • True to his word, - feels like editorializing
      • Modified. I did want to emphasize that Richard followed through on his promise following the riot. I would still like to keep that somehow; is the new text better?
    • the return of his former Punch line teammate, Toe Blake, - don't seem to recall you mentioning that they'd disbanded
      • It is noted in the final paragraph of the 50 goals in 50 games section that Blake was forced to retire due to a leg injury. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that #Playing style should be after the remainder of his biographical information. It is really jolting to switch from Ambassador to style to Ambassador
      • That probably sets up the same problem in reverse. Player to personal to player. I moved the fact that Richard was offered the role of team ambassador to the lead of the Personal life section. Does this look better to you? Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Richard was named a vice-president in 1964. - explicitly say that it was one of the team's VPs? Also, anything to link?
      • Done on the first. What are you looking for in terms of a link? Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was thinking something like President (hockey) or President (sports), but apparently both would be redlinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Challenge there is that the modern role of team president (or even historical) would not fit what Richard was. He seemed to be a vice-president of nothing in particular, which is why he split with the club fairly quickly. I can't think of any appropriate link for that. Resolute 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But even if Richard always refused to be seen as a symbol of national affirmation, he is widely considered as one by Quebec's francophone population to this day, and it is still commonly said that Richard was a « Héro malgré lui » («Hero despite his will»). - what's this supposed to be? A direct quote?
      • Again, something added by another user after this FAC began. On top of being unsourced (and which I cannot find such a source online for), I don't like the editorializing style either. Removed for now. Resolute
    • That last paragraph, with Malancon, has some serious weight issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm. It is really a long quote. I think the countering quote added by the same IP that put the commentary above in helps in this regard. (and I was able to verify that one.) Does that help, or should I still cut that Melancon quote down? Otherwise, still considering how to handle the lead, and still planning to look at the copyright status of those images. Thanks! Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd trim it a bit. Rocket is a fairly big subject, and the Quebec separatist movement an even bigger one. Giving a single person a whole paragraph would feel undue either way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I cut out part of the quote. Hopefully the two passages balance out now. Resolute 01:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. You still have several harv errors in your references. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now that more people who are a bit better acquainted with hockey have weighed in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "with his byline": I copy edited the text to this wording to keep note that the column was Richard's (albeit ghostwritten), as opposed to a weekly column attributed to a sportswriter (or a staff). I think there is some value to maintain this distinction, but if consensus feels otherwise, the clause can be removed. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That line was added by another editor at some point. On the GA reviewed version, I had written that Richard authored the column. Unfortunately, it also appears that an editor, while well meaning, added some content that degraded the prose in several areas after I started this FAC. That is why Henri Richard is needlessly mentioned in the second sentence. I will have to go clean it up, but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Just checking in right now to thank both of you for the comments and reviews. Resolute 23:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who modified the text regarding the column's authorship, since the source noted that it was ghostwritten, so stating the column was authored by Richard seemed a bit too assertive. I can try to re-edit it again. (The change regarding Henri was not done by me.) isaacl (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember, but was Richard still ghostwriting his article at that time? If he was, then noting that it was under his byline would be incorrect. I would rather use a variant of "...that he helped author" unless we are certain he was writing under his own name at that time. I'll have to go back to research the exact status of his article at that point. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Montreal Gazette article cited, the column was ghostwritten by someone else for Richard, which implies the column had Richard's name on it. I'm not sure what you mean by "was Richard still ghostwriting his article"; there would be no benefit to the reporter or paper to let Richard write anonymously. isaacl (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fixed number of columns is deprecated in {{reflist}} in favour of colwidth
  • Don't use semicolons to create pseudoheadings in References, per MOS:LAYOUT
  • FN19: page formatting
  • Lavigne or Lavinge?
  • No citations to Posen. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget850[edit]

Duplicate citations ids; see [2]

  • Two citations sourced to Ottawa Citizen with a date of 1945. Use |year=1945a to disambiguate per template:Sfn#More_than_one_work_in_a_year which applies here as well.
  • Four citation links with no author or date. #24 accounts for three uses.
  • No author, date 1959.
  • No author, date 1960.
  • No author, date 2000.

Don't worry about the other validation errors: these are known MediaWiki issues. --  Gadget850 talk 15:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no authors on those cites because there are no listed authors. They are newspaper cites without bylines. Likewise the publication date on ref 24. There is no listed publication date. The cites are filled out with all available information. As far as two cites being sourced to the Ottawa Citizen in 1945 goes, it seems decidedly odd that {{harvnb}} can't use the fact that they are different dates to create separate anchors, but the year parameter seems to have worked without negatively impacting visible output. Thanks, Resolute 15:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

I was one of those little boys who so disappointed their Canadian fathers—I never followed hockey, or any other sport. To atone for my sins I'm reviewing sports FACs. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.

  • Onésime was a carpenter by trade, and took a job with the Canadian Pacific Railway shortly after Maurice was born.: did he work for CP as a carpenter?
    Yes. Does the current wording not convey that? Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • until he was re-hired: re-hired by CP?
  • his first child, Huguette,: I assume this is a girl?
  • his daughter's birth weight: I imagine only a minority of likely readers will not realize this is pounds, but it still should be made explicit
  • and was almost bowing to Richard: what does this mean?
  • Montreal's rival fans: meaning Leafs fans?
  • Richard via physical abuse: I'm not sure "p
    • Looks like your thought got cut off. I assume you dislike the use of "physical abuse"? Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I was trying to say "physical abuse" was an odd choice in the context, associated more with helpless victim-like situations. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • in his weekly newspaper column: Richard had a column?
    • This might be the most problematic half-sentence in my Wikipedia career. This is a rewording from above discussion. @Isaacl: - what do you think of my latest rewording? Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally I think just saying it was his weekly column is good enough (according to the article I linked to below, Richard was the source of the material for the column), but your wording is fine, too. I suggest keeping "weekly", but it's not a big issue. isaacl (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard was struck in the head with Hal Laycoe's stick.: I wonder how many 21st-century readers will realize the players had no helmets
    • Probably not many, but I'm not sure a note is necessary given the more vicious nature of the sport at that time is already well introduced. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Do no more harm. Get behind the team in the playoffs. I will take my punishment and come back next year and help the club and the younger players to win the Cup": (a) if the quote ends here, the period should go inside the quotemarks; (b) I assume this was in French; if so, it would be a good idea to include the original (you could throw it into an endnote).
    • Fixed part a. For part b, I don't read French so wouldn't be able to easily find the original quote. The French article doesn't appear to include it. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been looking around but haven't found it yet---I did find this, though---it looks like quite a few songs have been written about the riot. The book's in French, but the songs quoted are in English. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was terrifying".: again, if this quote ends with a period, it should go inside
    • Changed. One of those annoying rules I never quite get. I was always under the impression that the period goes inside if the entire sentence is within the quote, but outside if not. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the entire sentence not inside the quote? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this case, yes. I was speaking generally to the three times you called it out but put the comment against the wrong example. ;) Resolute 01:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard was still an active player when Gordie Howe overtook his career record for points.: shoudn't this go in "Playing career" rather than "Playing style"?
    • I put it there because it was part of a discussion of his records and when they were broken. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • owned the "544 / 9 Tavern" in Montreal: might want to make explicit why it was named so
  • He died on May 27, 2000.: no cause of death?
  • We all wore the famous number 9 on our backs".: again, if the quote ends with a period, it should go inside
  • Should probably mention the NFB short, as many know the story only through that.
    • Changed, but the Story and the short are contained within the same article at The Hockey Sweater. I'm not sure I like the new wording. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally I suggest placing any information about the short in a following sentence, a parenthetical aside, or a footnote, since the current sentence has "Author Carrier" as the subject. While it's not exactly wrong to call him the author of the explanation in the short, it's a bit misleading as it can carry the implication that he had more involvement in the production than I think he did. isaacl (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the situation in French Quebec at the time: I wonder if this could be briefly expanded on; the further a person is from Quebec the less likely they are to understand the situation, and many (especially non-Canadians) are unaware of the large anglo minority in Montreal, which was an larger minority before the PQ came to power and caused an anglo rush to other parts of Canada: about a quarter of Montrealers were native English speakers in 1971, now down to less than 15%. I don't expect anything in-depth, but it should be briefly touched on, especially for those readers to whom Quebec equals French. It may be assumed that anti-anglo sentiments were directed at "foreign" places like Ontario.
    • Oooh, I think that might be out of scope for this article, and that paragraph already gives a basic overview. I did modify a statement to avoid implying both that Quebec is uniformly Francophone and the rest of the country uniformly Anglophone. Ultimately, I think the Quiet Revolution article that is linked would be the best place for a reader to go for more information. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps it could be mentioned in passing somewhere that Montreal had a large anglo minority? I don't expect this article to delve into the whole sticky situation, but since the article brings it up, a tad more context would be good, if at the very least to proactively turn readers away from "obvious" assumptions. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the context of this article, that really feels like a non sequitur. Montreal's Anglophone minority isn't specifically discussed in relation to either the riot at the time or it's legacy. I am open to suggestions on a statement you think might work, however. Resolute 01:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like I said, I don't want to see the article dive into a complicated tangent, but the subject should be breached with care. For instance, take a look at this, which points out that the Candiens were owned by anglos and that most of the players trying to take him out of the game were anglos. Of course, it goes into much more detail on the subject than this article should, but I do think it's important context. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Team ownership I don't believe is as much an issue as team management at the GM and coaching level. But the Canadiens have assiduously kept themselves neutral with respect to the language issue, and so I don't believe the owner's heritage needs to be discussed. isaacl (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • The authors of the book I linked to seem to disagree. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Regarding the passage on the club being ruled by anglophones, Selke, Blake, Irvin, etc. were anglophones. Regarding the later passage on the team being owned by anglophones, as the text notes, this is prior to Richard's career; during his playing time, the team had francophone ownership. isaacl (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, I don't think I'm making my point clear. To those who don't know the cultural background (which includes large numbers of Canadians) some statements are apt to be misinterpreted: that he played with "English boys" could, for instance, come off as a "some of my best friends are black" sort of thing. The briefest (but carefully worded) gloss of what kind of city Montreal was could avoid that kind of thing. You're reading this as someone who knows these things and takes them for granted. Wikipedia articles can't assume readers will have your knowledge. Sources such as this one take time out to give the language background of Montreal to provide a backdrop to the riot. [https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=mFzAU3D_Wx8C&pg=PA98&dq=maurice+richard++bilingual+montreal&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UaOTVMegKIji8gWW1YDQDw&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=maurice%20richard%20%20bilingual%20montreal&f=false Here's a bit on the Canadiens (and Richard) feeling resentful at not getting French-speaking coaches—if you didn't know there was a large English minority in Montreal, the idea that the coaches would speak only English seems bizarre. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think you may be reading more into my comments that I'm saying. I was offering a view specifically regarding expanding on the background of team ownership, which doesn't factor in with questions of Richard's teammates. I have not weighed in on whether or not additional information regarding the background of the team coaches ought to be included. Specifically regarding your point on English-speaking coaches, it's not because of the city's linguistic composition, but because of the relative number of anglophones playing hockey. isaacl (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The thing is, I'm not trying to make any sort of poitn at all about coaches. The point I'm trying to make is that readers will make assumptions about Montreal being a "French" city, and that when language issues arise in the article they will therefore be coloured by that assumption. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • My comments were specifically regarding ownership, where I do not believe there are any assumptions being made that would be dispelled by examining the linguistic background of the owners. Setting aside the question of whether or not the examples you've given so far are applicable, I think that an understanding of the two cultures in Montreal is helpful in understanding the backdrop in which the Canadiens exist, but I'm not sure to what extent it is necessary to expand on this within the article. isaacl (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a source that claims: "Since the NHL was run by Anglophones, and Richard had experienced tremendous prejudice and class hatred, he eventually became quite expressive about the rights of French Quebecers." If this statement's true, it seems like a pretty important detail missing from the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. The CBC Archive story on the riot directly contradicts that by using statements from Richard himself, and none of the other sources I have read indicate that he was ever "quite expressive about the rights of French Quebecers" in public. He was expressive about how the English establishment in the NHL treated English players vs. French, but that is already noted with both the quote box and first paragraph in the riot section. Without some other sources to back that up, I'm worried that is a fringe view - possibly conflating Richard's statements in the context of the NHL to a wider view that is not necessarily supported. Resolute 15:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I never followed hockey so feel free to laugh if this is inappropriate, but I would've assumed there'd be some mention of the Original Six era in the article.
    • I can't really pick out where it would be an appropriate fit. Richard's career was never mentioned in the context of the Original Six, and even though the majority of it was during that era, his first few seasons were prior to it. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hahahahaha! Actually, seriously, thanks for the review! I will look to address these later today. Resolute 15:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded. Thanks again for the review! Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Looks very good. A couple of points:

  • The 1945 picture has a lot of dead space at the top and right. This is just a suggestion, and isn't necessary for FA, but you might consider cropping it.
  • "An incident late in the 1954–55 season brought their dispute to the forefront": suggest "An incident late in the 1954–55 season brought their dispute to a head".
  • The list of external links looks like it could perhaps be trimmed a little -- do the biographies actually add anything to the article? I'd guess that you've already included anything useful in them.
  • I noticed that the French article on Richard is featured; have you reviewed it for anything useful?

Prose looks clean to me. The article is well organized and readable; I had a hard time finding things to comment on. I expect to support once the above questions are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped the image and removed some links (the histori.ca domain has changed so they were broken anyway, and I removed the French links that were redundant to English versions that remain). I originally had the text as "came to a head", but over the course of this review someone, (perhals Issacl) changed it. I prefer the original wording, so set it back. As for the French version of the article, I don't read French myself, but another editor did come along and add a couple passages based on what was in that article already. Thanks for the review! Resolute 02:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The changes look good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remember changing it, but it was indeed me. I believe I felt "came to a head" relied on the reader being familiar with a particular English idiom, and so I modified it in the interest of improving global understanding. isaacl (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to another phrasing being used, but the meaning isn't quite the same. "To the forefront" means that that the dispute became more visible or more apparent, or that it became the most important issue; "to a head" means that the dispute reached a crisis point of some kind, which is a better description. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For that interpretation, how about "reached a crisis point" instead? In Wiktionary, "come to a head" has various other definitions; #2 is the one that "to the forefront" was describing. #1 is about coming to a conclusion where the underlying conflict is changed in some way; if this is the meaning you intend to relay, then I suggest "reached a turning point" (also a metaphor, but I think a more readily accessible one). isaacl (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I mis-edited it to say "An incident late in the 1954–55 season brought their dispute came to a head"; I've fixed it while we discuss other options. I think "turning point" is better than "forefront", but how about "flash point", or the verb "erupt"? Perhaps "The dispute erupted after an incident late in the 1954–55 season"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify that the dispute predates the incident, how about "The ongoing dispute erupted...", or "The simmering dispute...", which would fit the erupted metaphor? isaacl (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like "simmering". As you say it fits the metaphor; and I also agree that we need an adjective to clarify that the dispute was ongoing. I think referring to the incident and then giving the details of the incident is a bit redundant, so what do you think of combining this sentence with the next, like this: "The simmering dispute erupted after an incident in the Canadiens' March 13, 1955, game against Boston, when Richard was struck in the head with Hal Laycoe's stick"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "simmering" works for me as well, but I wonder how necessary it is to point out that the dispute was ongoing when the entire paragraph describes their ongoing dispute? Resolute 04:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The timeline is not specified in the previous sentences, so saying that the dispute erupted due to an event can mean that the event was the inciting factor that caused the dispute. Regarding the additional proposal, I agree that combining the sentence in question with the next one improves the concision. isaacl (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are we in enough agreement to make the change? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added "simmering", hopefully to where you two expected it. Resolute 14:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made a further copy edit along the lines proposed by Mike. Thanks to everyone for their work in bringing this article to Featured Article status! isaacl (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- very quiet here lately apart from Mike... Curly and Crisco, could you let me know current status re. your comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replied above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a couple of questions that were left hanging, and the FAC just seemed to go dead (I assumed Resolute was away for the holidays or something). There was only one important issue I'd like to still see resolved, but I'm not totally confident it's actionable, so I'm giving this article my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I was mostly keeping quiet over the holidays and assumed others were too. Appreciate the reviews, comments and supports, all. Thanks! Resolute 04:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Maurice_Richard/archive1&oldid=642523239"