Talk:HL Anyang/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

I will be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy[edit]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead needs to be expanded and prose issues not addressed.
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Regarding lead[edit]

The lead seems somewhat brief. It is to be a summary of the entire article per WP:LEAD. It can be up to three paragraphs. Given the length of the article, another paragraph on some of the hisotry and current ownership etc. would help enhance it.

I'll expand this.
Finally expanded. Ownership hasn't changed to my knowledge, Mando is a subsidiary of Halla. The history we have is about all I can find in English or Korean perhaps without going to some archives somewhere.--Crossmr (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The info box is good. Free use rationale for logo is good.

Regarding Team history[edit]

Don't wikilink .500, the link is not really useful. Perhaps rewording it to make it sound more professional would be best. "Breaking .500" is sports jargon.

Its a sports article, this is a very common piece of jargon across (almost) all sports. Jargon says it should either be not used or explained. New_Jersey_Devils is an FA that uses the term twice.

Prose in this section is pretty weak. Here is an example, "Anyang managed to win only a single game of the first three which were played on home ice and were eliminated in the 4th game which was played in Kokudo's home rink by a score of 5-1." The wording here is awkward. Consider breaking the sentence into two or simply stating that Kokudo beat Hall 4 games to 1.
Check comma usage through this section. The above sentence is an example, "...in the 4th game"," which was played in Kokudo's home rink...." There should be a comma after game. I found a few of these in this section.

I'll clean these up

Why did Halla refuse to play the rest of the game? Was it because the goal did not count? This is unclear.

This isn't explicit stated in a reliable source that I can pull from. My interpretation from the wording is that since the goal was scored on the buzzer the coach probably felt it shouldn't count but the ref had a different opinion. The two sources just state he refused to play and boycotted the game after the goal was counted. They don't spell out that he didn't return to the ice because he felt it wasn't a goal. I was worried about introducing original research.

You do not indicate how they did after the 2007-2008 season, what was their result in the playoffs? H1nkles (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The playoffs told a different story and Nippon swept Halla in 3 games. Halla lost each game by a single goal. Vejvoda praised Nippon's goalie for his excellent play and commended his players for their effort. - that is playoff note for the 2007-2008 season.

Regarding remainder of article[edit]

The rest looks good, some prose issues throughout though that will need to be addressed before I can pass the article.

Regarding references[edit]

References check out, links are fine. Your formatting is a little off, you need to put a publisher or author or work in some of the website references like #'s 41-43, #'s 29-38 as well. ~~Also you have multiple retrieved on dates, why?~~

Do you mean why do some references have one date and other references have other dates? Because those were the dates the references were actually retrieved and used on the article which is what the retrieved on field means, at least that was my understanding of it. Most of the website refs that don't have author/pub are from anyang halla or alhockey, there usually aren't authors. I can add the site name as a publisher.

Sorry, in taking a closer look I note that in some references you have a date, which I assume is the date of the article, followed immediately by the accessdate. Usually this is broken up by the publisher. My eyes ran the dates together and I thought I saw multiple accessdates. That was my fault. H1nkles (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up all the refs to add publishers to each.--Crossmr (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Review[edit]

Overall the article is very close. There are some prose issues that are keeping me from passing it outright. If you can polish some of the writing issues discussed above I will go ahead and pass it. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead still hasn't been expanded, in fact no edits have been done on the article since my review. You indicate that you are working on it. I will hold it another couple of days and then make my determination. H1nkles (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no further edits have been made and ample time has been given since the initial review I must fail this article. Please address the issues in the article and renominate. H1nkles (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]