Wikipedia:Peer review/List of Detroit Red Wings seasons/archive1

List of Detroit Red Wings seasons

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want eventually to submit it as a Featured List Candidate and would like input from the community as to how to get it up to that standard. My concerns are as follows:

• MOS:DTT, specifically the use of column headers in the middle of the table. "Do not place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table."
• There may be other requirements of MOS:DTT that the page in it's current form does not meet.
• How to handle the cells from the 2004–05 season, cancelled by lockout. I prefer to use the mdash to signify "does not apply" in all cells and state "No playoffs due to lockout" in the playoff results cell, exactly the way it was done until very recently at List of New Jersey Devils seasons, List of New York Islanders seasons, List of Tampa Bay Lightning seasons, and List of New York Rangers seasons, to name a few (all are Featured Lists and were the templates I used to shape this list into it's current form). As it is now it is essentially a column header in the middle of the table, which once again I see as a violation of MOS:DTT.
• The lead. I wrote the lead and don't consider writing leads to be my strong suit. Is it up to snuff?
• Anything and everything you can think of.

Thanks, Rejectwater (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

1. Overall, both sourcing and table formulation and general structure looks very very good.
2. See also - any chance there are additional relevant links that could be added here? Perhaps 3 or 4 or so?
3. Notes - this sect would look better without the spaces between each individual entry.
4. Portals - good use of {{Portal bar}}, however, could use some more portals, perhaps location ones, like Portal:Michigan, Portal:Metro Detroit, and Portal:United States.
5. Further reading - sect missing. Perhaps consider adding a Further reading sect, with three or four books or journal articles of relevance to suggest to the reader.
6. That's about all I can think of because it looks so good already.

— Cirt (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Responses from Rejectwater

1. Thank you.
2. I can't think of any. The relevant links besides that one are all included in the page or in the "NHL seasons by team" template at the bottom of the page. In fact, given that template includes a link to List of NHL seasons it could be argued the See Also section as used here is redundant.
3. Done.
4. Done.
5. I will have to think on this one. The only thing that comes to mind is the league's annual NHL Official Guide & Record Book. Not exactly light reading for the average Joe.
6. Thanks again.

—Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

2. I have deleted the "See Also" section as redundant. List of NHL seasons was already linked twice elsewhere on the page. At this time I don't believe there is other relevant content to link to that isn't already linked in the table, in the text, in the references, in the templates, etc.

5. I don't see this happening. All the sources, etc, are listed in the references section, with exception of the NHL Official Guide & Record Book which I will add as a reference. I cannot think of anything applicable to this topic filling out a "further reading" section.

—Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the responsiveness to my comments, above. Comments resolved and stricken. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments - as Cirt said, it's looking very good already.

• You "easter egg" link some season articles but not others. It's a little odd for me.
• " The 2012–13 season is the 86th season of play for the Detroit franchise, and since their founding the Red Wings have won 2,735 regular season games..." season repeated three times in quick succession.
• " a two games total goals series" somewhat odd phrasing for me.
• "dating from 1967 until 1983" don't think you need "dating"
• " at all in this time" during this time?
• In the totals, I'm surprised you don't use commas for numbers larger than 999 as you have in the lead?

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Responses from Rejectwater

• I believe I have standardized all my easter eggs.
• Modified the sentence.
• "Two legged tie" is even weirder in my opinion, but I have changed the sentence in a way I hope makes it less so.
• Removed.
• Changed as recommended.
• Good catch. Fixed.

Thank you for your kind words, your input, and for taking the time. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Shudde

I was asked to help out with this peer review. Have a few comments:

• First thing that strikes me is that both images are of the team with George Bush – considering they have been around since 1926 could one of those be replaced with something a little bit different?

• I found something. I would love to have old, old stuff, like a team picture from the first season. "Never stop looking". I'll have to make an image map for this one. Rejectwater (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Founded in 1926 as the Detroit Cougars, they were known as the Detroit Falcons from 1930 until 1932, finally changing their name to the Red Wings" – this doesn't read particularly well.
• the 2012–13 season is still going, but it's over for the Red Wings, would it be better to changes the tense from present to past?
• " in the Stanley Cup playoffs 61 times, and have won 11 Stanley Cup titles" maybe remove first Stanley Cup, avoids close repetition
• Should the captions have a fullstop at the end?

• I consider the captions as being grammatically complete sentences. Rejectwater (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure about the alt-text descriptions: "A group of young to middle-aged men stand around an older man holding a red ice hockey jersey bearing the word "BUSH" and the number "41""
• "winning the Stanley Cup in seven of those opportunities" -> "winning the Cup seven times" ?

• I was trying not to use the word "times" too many times. Rejectwater (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Their last trip to the Finals in this era came in 1966 when they lost in six games to the Montreal Canadiens" -> "Their last Finals appearance of this era came in 1966 when they lost in six games to the Montreal Canadiens" ?
• "playoffs only twice in 17 years" is "in 17 years" necessary immediately after specifying the time period?
• "2012–13 NHL season is linked twice in the lead
• " losing in the first round three games to one to the St. Louis Blues" not sure this reads well
• "However, in both 1997 and 1998 they made it back to the Finals, themselves winning in four games to none sweeps, first over the Philadelphia Flyers and then against the Washington Capitals." not sure about this sentence either
• "Their most recent championships have come in 2002 and 2008 with their most recent Finals appearance in 2009 where they lost to the Pittsburgh Penguins." maybe try something like "Their most recent championships were in 2002 and 2008, and their most recent Finals appearance a loss to the Pittsburgh Penguins in 2009."
• Does clicking on the notes not do anything for other readers? Or is this just my browser?

• The notes should provide a tooltip pop-up when you hover over them and should also take you down to the appropriate note if you click. Rejectwater (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about some of the notes: "Before the 1967–68 season, the NHL split into East and West Divisions because of the addition of six expansion teams." – could this be ambiguous? Do you mean "Immediately before the 1967–68 season"?
• Is it me, is this confusing? MOS:YEAR says "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986)." — but technically centuries run from say 2001 to 2100. In this case, we would say "1999–00 NHL season" and "2000–2001 NHL season"? Should this section of the MoS be clarified? If you ask me, "1999–00 NHL season" reads better, and there is no chance of confusion (no one will think the season runs until 2100).

• This is how it is done as far as I know. See for instance 1999–2000 NBA season, Talk:1999–2000 NHL season, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive6#1999-2000_or_1999-00.3F. Rejectwater (talk) 14:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That is all I've got. Feel free to ignore any you don't agree with, but hopefully the comments are helpful. - Shudde ^talk 05:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)