Talk:2011 National Hockey League All-Star Game/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Harrias ^talk 08:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Looks pretty good overall, I'd have perhaps expected to see a little bit more written about the game itself though: could this be expanded upon?

there were a lot of goals scored so I could mention those to expand it. My original concern was that it would seem somewhat redundant so I tried to highlight the more notable goals and events without bogging it down with repetitive things like player A scored then player B scored. The page in general was seemingly a bit long so I tried to keep it a bit shorter, I would have preferred to limit the skills comp section but I felt that a description of the events was important in explaining what was going on. I will try to expand the game information later today.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no major problem if the answer is "no, it can't really be expanded that much". If, as you say, it would just become a repetitive "player A scored then player B scored", then don't worry about it. Harrias ^talk 21:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of the goal scores to the second period summary and changed it around slightly. I'm going to go over the results and toy with adding something to it but as of right now I don't think that much can be added of note. So I'm probably not going to change it very much.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The box-score at the bottom needs more explanation for non-hockey fans: it is not clear that the names in brackets are the players with assists, GWG needs explaining, as does the fact that W and L refers to the winning and losing netminders.

I spelled out the abbreviations, and put the words Goal and Assists before players names to clarify. To be honest I'm not to familiar with the way the box scores are set-up so let me know if you think it's too busy or something of that nature.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through the article for a more thorough copy edit later today. Harrias ^talk 08:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll try to work on the issues that have been brought up so far later today and anything that comes up after if I get to it before you. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Per MOS:BOLDTITLE, I'd prefer you did not include a link in the bold title of the article, and instead linked National Hockey League and All-Star on their next usage in the article (excluding the second bold title!)
Also, per MOS:ABBR, you should really place NHL in brackets after National Hockey League before using it (ie. National Hockey League (NHL)). I can't quite work out how you should fit this in, because once more, you probably should do that in the bold title. Don't sacrifice the prose to manage this though.
"Toronto’s Phil Kessel became the last player chosen." – Rather than "became the" I think simply "was" would flow better.
"In addition Zdeno Chara broke.." – there should be a comma after addition I think.
I'm not overly fussed, but it might be useful to provide a conversion of the speed of Chara's shot, as suggested in MOS:CONVERSIONS.
"Team Staal won the contest 33-22." – Should be an endash.
"During the game the two teams combined for the fourth highest total of goals scored in an All-Star game with Team Lidstrom prevailing 11–10." – "... with noun verbing" is frowned upon, try and rework this sentence to avoid it.
Link breakaway to Breakaway (ice hockey) for non-experts.
Expand Most Valuable Player on first use and put MVP in brackets after it; although widely used in the US, in the UK at least, this isn't used much: we prefer Man of the match!
Your last few sentences in the lead repeat the format "John Smith became the..", try and change a few to prevent repetition.

I think I hit all of these points. Hopefully the rest of the article won't be quite as bad I tend to find summing up the page a bid difficult, but puntucation is a bit of an issue for me.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I tend to be pretty picky on these reviews! Harrias ^talk 22:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue the review later, sorry it's a bit slow going! Harrias ^talk 18:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it being slow, I'm in no hurry besides this review is about a month and a half sooner than when I expected it to be :) --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"The 58th National Hockey League All-Star Game was originality to be hosted by the Phoenix Coyotes at Jobing.com Arena in Glendale, Arizona." – 'originality' is the wrong word here, try either "originally due" or "originally scheduled".

Stupid spell check I must have clicked on the wrong word - changed.

I'm not sure, but I think "nice year old" would be better hyphenated to "nine-year-old".

hyphenated.
New format

On first use, I'd suggest writing NHL Players Association (NHLPA).

Spelled out.

Goalies isn't really encyclopedic language, you should really use goaltender.

Changed.

"..which was played in the last five All-Star weekends." – this is a little ambiguous, perhaps replace it with "..which had been played in the previous five All-Star weekends."

Changed.

The sentences about rookies are pretty confusing. The tense appears to flick between past, present and even future, when it should really remain in past, and on occasions it appears that words are missing. The four sentences can probably be merged down to three.
In your list of events in the Skills Competition, all of the skills have both words capitalised except "Hardest shot": I'd suggest you capitalise Shot.
"Prior to the skills competition the NHL tested changes to some of the events. Among the changes tested were goaltenders participating in both the Fastest Skater and shooting in the Accuracy Shooting. Plus each team selected a defenceman to skate backwards in a "skate-off"." – "Plus each team.." isn't particularly brilliant grammar, and overall I find this a little confusing. Were the tests carried out during the weekend, as part of the event, or behind closed doors? How successful were the trials, is there any indication as to whether they will be continued? Harrias ^talk 22:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the testing section after re-reading it I determined it wasn't very helpful to the current article. I put it in before the events happened but after reviewing this section its not necessary. I also removed the list of events since it was redundant to the Skills Comp section.
The Guardian Project

I've reworded this section to improve it's readability. If it doesn't work for you, feel free to revert it and try something else: it just seemed to have too many very short sentences to me.

Looks good to me. Thank you for all of the ce you performed on the page. I appreciate it.
Voting

"When fan balloting ended 14.3 million votes were cast.." – should be "..votes had been cast.."

fixed

Completed as far as the end of the Draft section (note more for me than you!) Harrias ^talk 22:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a bit of a hurry but I think I hit all of these (will check again prob tomorrow) Thanks for going through the article so carefully.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 00:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuperSkills Competition

"four for four" and "four for five" – it might be worth explaining these: it isn't really something we use in the UK, although I know it is very common in the US.

Changed

"designed to show case players' skills." – I think showcase should be one word when used like this.

Fixed

"Team Lidstrom took first and third in the competition to gain a total of five points." – Maybe to clarify this could be rewritten "The two groups from Team Lidstrom finished first and third in the competition, gaining their team a total of five points." Or something like that?

Changed
Game play

"..had jumped out to a.." – not particularly encyclopedic language: try ".. had opened up a.."

Changed

As annoying as this is going to seem: I preferred the box score originally, I'd just provide a key: For example:

Key:
Player1 (Player2, Player3) 1:00 denotes that Player1 scored a goal after 1:00, with assists from Player2 and Player3 or
For goals scored, the scorer is listed first, followed by players with assists, listed in parentheses.
GWG denotes the Game Winning Goal.

changed to using a key as suggested. It was a bit annoying but I think getting to be as best as possible is the goal so no big deal.
Notes

You don't provide a reference for Chara's shot being a new record here. Although I know the reference is provided in the prose you should also cite it here.

Add reference
References

Pretty good all round, but Ref 5 uses DD-MM-YYYY rather than YYYY-MM-DD.

Fixed

For news references, like the Boston Globe, you should list location and publisher in addition to the work. Also Times-News, The News & Observer etc.

Added locations

The first few references list NHL.com, but then from Ref 22, they list National Hockey League: I'm not overly fussed either way, but be consistent.

Changed to a constraint way of use.

Ref 41, Huffington Post needs to be a work, thus making it italicised, and as above, given publisher and location details.

Fixed

Well, that's the whole lot. I'll place the review on hold to let you cover the rest of these points. Nice article though. Harrias ^talk 10:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all the issues above. Let me know if I have missed anything. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 23:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added the publisher details for your refs and had a little bit of a general clean up across the page, which now meets GA standards, congratulations, and sorry for the painstaking process! Harrias ^talk 11:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that Looks like I overlooked that when I was adding the location. No apologies necessary the article is in much better shape thanks to the detailed review and it's not like you asked for anything off the wall or ridicules. Thanks again for the review. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]