Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hockey Hall of Fame

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 00:05, 18 February 2008.

---

Hockey Hall of Fame

:Check external links

Oh boy, my first FAC that doesn't relate to The Simpsons. Anyway, I've been working on this page for about a month, and rewrote it from a form that contained a lot of POV and propaganda. I feel it meets the MOS, and is fully sourced. Special thanks to Maxim for copyediting it. Any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've copyedited it a bit as well (thanks, Scorpion, for the thanks! :-p), and I've just checked the external links. I got a bunch of 111 Connection refused problems with any site from the Hall of Fame (ie all primary sources have "errors"). The websites, actually, are perfectly fine. It's the relation between the script that analyses the links and how the site is built. A similar issue happened in the Calgary Flames FAC, for reference. Maxim_(talk) 14:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Some measurements are missing conversions. Epbr123 (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Are conversions really needed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added the two conversion that Epbr123 asked for; it's not a big deal, IMHO, and I understand stuff better in metric than imperial. :-) Maxim_(talk) 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. GREAT WORK! But, some additional work is needed: Support, my concerns have been fixed or addressed - thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I realize that the article has undergone some copyediting, but it needs more fit and finish. There are several awkward sentences, at least one spelling error (I corrected), and misc grammar issues. I called out many of them below, but please have a fresh pair of eyes look this over again.
    • Done
  • "New honourees are selected annually by a committee of 18 people that meets in June, which mainly consists of former players and coaches." Reads like it is June that consists of former players and coaches. Maybe say, "A committee of 18 people, mostly players and coaches, meets annually in June to select new honourees."
    • Done
  • "Honourees are inducted in..." I don't think you are "inducted in"; you are just "inducted".
    • Done
  • Why is the Gil Stein incident mentioned so prominently in the lead? Are there sources stating that it is the most significant controversy in HHOF history? If not, it does not belong in the lead - it would suffice to say that there has been controversy and criticism.
    • That is a remnant of when the contoversy had its own section. It has been removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Sutherland died ten years later, and thus Kingston had lost its most influential advocate to permanently put the Hall there." Grammar.
    • Done
  • "In 1966, the induction ceremony was a 'stag affair'..." Colloquial, reword for general audience.
    • Done
  • "By 1986, the Hall of Fame was quickly expanding and running out of room in its building, and it was decided that a new home was needed." Who decided? Reword using active voice to identify subject.
    • Done
  • I'm not sure why the "haunting" of Brookfield Place is mentioned here.. it seems out of place. How does it relate to the HHOF? I'm reading the history of the HHOF and suddenly I'm reading about ghosts.
    • Removed
  • There is no discussion of why various exhibits seemingly have corporate sponsorship attached to them.. MCI, Panasonic, Lay's, etc. How were these sold and established? How are the proceeds used, considering the Hall's current non-profit status?
    • I'm assuming that they need the sponsorship funds to help maintain the exhibits, but there is no source for it.
  • How else does the Hall earn revenue aside from admissions? Do they solicit donations in other ways?
    • I couldn't find anything that says this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The "TSN/RDS Broadcast Zone" provides a look at how hockey broadcasting works and allows users to record messages which can be displayed..." Use "that" instead of "which".
    • Done
  • "Six member's terms expire every year..." Check apostrophe use.
    • Done
  • At the beginning of the "Criticism" section, you mention that there were controversies over the retirement period, but you have not written about those controversies. You wrote that the period was waived and then brought back, but not that is was a controversy.
    • The portion has been removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "The Hall of Fame has alternatively been criticised for inducting several lacklustre candidates in the early 2000s due to "a shortage of true greatness," but has since been claimed that the Hall of Fame is too exclusive." Grammar.
    • Done
  • "The Hall of Fame has also been criticised for its lack of international players and has been far too focused on the National Hockey League with a common statement being that it is not the "NHL Hall of Fame"." Grammar.
    • Done
  • "One of the most debated possibilities is Paul Henderson, who scored one of the most famous goals in hockey and Canadian sports history when he scored the winning goal in the final moments of the deciding eighth game of the 1972 Summit Series between Canada and the Soviet Union." Grammar. Also, consider using "potential honouree" or similar instead of "possibility".
    • Done
  • "However, Stein would also admit that to becoming obsessed with his own election to the Hall of Fame..." Grammar.
    • Done
  • Did Eagleson's crimes involve the hockey business? You don't really say why the other players wanted him expelled. Was it just because he was a criminal?
    • Done
  • The "See also" heading should not contain wikilinks to articles that are already linked in the main text.
    • Removed
  • The book Honoured members: the Hockey Hall of Fame needs to have an author listed to be a proper Reference. Amazon lists the author as "Hockey Hall of Fame" but this may need some research. --Laser brain (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I've searched the book back to front and I can't find anyone that even comes close to being an author. It is an official poblication of the Hall of Fame and unfortunately, that book is the only source for several of the things mentioned in the articl, so I really don't want to remove all of the uses of it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. I think the prose still needs a bit of work. While it isn't awful, there are a lot of instances where it could be tightened, which would make it more readable. I've listed a few of those here, but this is not comprehensive.
  • Need nonbreaking spaces between numerals and their units or qualifiers (ex, 238 players, 18 people, etc)
    • Done
  • Prose issues:
    • "The first eleven inductees were inducted on April 30, 1945, despite not having a permanent home" -> the inductees didn't have a permanent home? where was it located at the time if it didn't have a permanent home?
      • Done
        • That sentence actually reads the same. It makes it sound like the inductees did not have a home, and I think the article means that the Museum did not have a permanent home. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
          • Done -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • "Sutherland died ten years later, and thus Kingston had lost its most influential advocate" Perhaps, "When Sutherland died ten years later, Kingston lost its most influential advocate"
      • Done
    • "would visit it " - shouldn't that just be "visited it"
      • Done
    • "The Hall would be visited by 750,000 people in its inaugural year" -> again, this should be "was visited by" instead of "would be visited" (or, even, better, "Over 75,000 people visited the Hall in its inaugural year"
      • Done
    • "since renamed to " -> since renamed
      • Done
    • "designed by the partnership of"-> why not just "designed by"
      • Done
  • This sentence is too long and should probably be split "Partially in response to these claims, the Hall of Fame recently opened an International Hockey exhibit and has said it will start looking at more international players for induction and inducted Valeri Kharlamov in 2005, who is one of the few modern-day inductees to never play in the NHL"
    • Done
  • "agreement that a new Hall of Fame" - does this mean that there would be a new building or that a new organization would be created? I'm wondering what happened to those who had been inducted
    • Done
  • What does it mean by "builders"? People who built hockey rinks?
    • I added a small definition of the types of people that are inducted into the category. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I saw the addition in the lead, but it should also be noted in the body of the article. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Done
  • "The induction ceremony would be made open to all members of an honouree's family the next year." -> does this mean it wasn't open to all members before or that they made changes so that it was more appropriate to visit your kids?
    • I've had a hard time with that sentence, so I just removed it. It really isn't that important anyway. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It might be wise to explain very very briefly what the Original Six era is, since I think most of us who don't follow hockey have never heard the term.
    • Well, it is linked, but Done
  • Was Henderson not inducted? It doesn't really say.
    • It does describe him as a "potential honouree" and it also says "If Henderson was inducted". Saying "Henderson has not been inducted" kind of interrupts the flow of the paragraph. -- 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Further note, I like the article. I don't think the prose is bad enough to object, but it isn't quite tight enough for me to support yet. Karanacs (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support But try moving some of the refs in the middle of a sentence to the end. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please check all of the links per the link checker at the top of this page; it indicates three 404s. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done... Strange, they all worked a week ago. This isn't good, because I use Canoe a lot to find good columns to use as sources... -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Neutral. 1a, but has potential if fixed throughout by a copy-editor. Can you find someone strange to the text to do this?

• The opening is "... Hall of Fame is a hall of fame ...". Not a good start. Can you remove "located"?
  • You have to explain exactly what it is and while it seems a little awkward, it is a Hall of Fame and museum. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• • • Well, why not "The Hockey Hall of Fame is in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. As a hall of fame and museum, it is dedicated to the ..."? Tony (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• POV creeping into the grammar: "The Hockey Hall of Fame was established in large part thanks to the efforts of James T. Sutherland"—No, "through the efforts of".
  • Done
• " it contains exhibits that feature interactive displays, players, teams, NHL records, memorabilia and NHL trophies, including the Stanley Cup"—First, "it features interactive ...". Second, are the players and teams housed behind glass? Is there a feeding time? Or do you mean "images" of them?
• Done
• MOS breach: "The new location has 51,000 sq ft (4,700 m²)"—nope; Canada-related articles must use metrics as main units. Tony (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done
• "outside of North America"—pick the redundant word.
  • Done -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Hi Tony, I'll try to search for a copyeditor how has no clue what the HHOF is... would that be good? :-) Maxim_(talk) 20:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of copyediting on the article tonight and will continue tomorrow evening. While I have a general familiarity with the subject matter, I've never read the article before, so I'll have fresh eyes. Risker (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I copy-edited the article and made some minor corrections here and there. I had a couple of small quips that Maxim covered. And, also, I agree with Rlvese (sp) that some of the refs could be shifted to the end of sentences/paragraphs. But other than that I think it's a decent read. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 00:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, part of the reason is that sometimes a sentence uses two completely different sources and I want to make sure each statement has a proper citation. As well, several quotes are used and I made sure each one had a source as well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• I've noticed that even though I quite involved in this FAC and article, I haven't supported. :D Support. Maxim_(talk) 00:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please check throughout for WP:NBSP, and newspaper names should be in WP:ITALICS in citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've italicized all of the newspaper names. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Things to do before I can support I have done a copy edit of the article up to the end of the "Exhibits" section, mainly to improve prose. I've made some small changes to overall structure; however, there are some significant article structure issues that would best be handled with the source materials close at hand. (I will finish up tomorrow after a bit of sleep.)
  • The second paragraph of the lead discusses the method by which people are nominated and selected for membership in the HHOF. This level of detail I think would be better later in the article, in the "Hall of Fame" section. Instead, I suggest a simpler sentence saying that inductees are selected by a committee appointed by the HHOF board of directors. Keep the sentences about the annual ceremony, number of inductees and the exclusiveness criticism. Add more about the HHOF's mission and internal structure (charity, board of directors), keeping things fairly general. (Note: I have not made many edits to this paragraph, since I'm suggesting much of it should be moved around.)
  • More detail about JT Sutherland and why he believed that Kingston was the birthplace of hockey would be useful, if you can find it.
    • That belongs more in the article about Sutherland than here, but if you really think it's necessary I'll see what I can find. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, although it would be helpful to have some explanation of why Sutherland or anyone else thought Kingston was the birthplace of hockey. It's a controversial subject. Risker (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Include discussion of the split between the HHOF and the International HHOF. I think this is quite a significant part of the history. The IHHOF continued to exist separately in Kingston. Did the HHOF mission/mandate change when the NHL took over?
    • There really isn't much to discuss. The hockey hall of fame WAS the IHHOF before 1958 and eventually moved to Toronto and renamed itself. The IHHOF was restarted years later.-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Hmm...the IHHOF website suggests differently[1], as does our Wikipedia article. Nothing in the hardcopy references you have? Risker (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please verify that 350,000 people visited the temporary HHOF in 1958; that number sounds more like the total number of people who attended the CNE, especially given that later in the paragraph you indicate an annual attendance of 75,000 (which would have included visitors during that year's CNE).
    • It's actually 750,000. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Due to the success of the exhibit, it was agreed that a permanent home in the Exhibition Place was needed."
    • Who were the parties to the agreement? Active voice would be useful here, as well (e.g., "Due to the success of the temporary exhibit, the NHL and the CNE agreed that...")
      • Done
  • Third para of "History" is standing alone, now that I have moved the part about admission prices up to the second para, where it fits better. I suggest developing that into a full paragraph in the "Hall of Fame" section.
    • Done
  • Adjust the size/positioning of the "World of Hockey Zone" image so that it doesn't affect the positioning of the heading for the next section.
    • Done
  • "...former NHL referee-in-chief Scotty Morrison, who was the president since 1986,..."
    • President of what?
      • Done by Maxim
  • The curators are named, but some description of how they shaped the HHOF would improve the article. We have an article about Lefty Reid, maybe touch base with the primary editor of that article to see if he still has the source material. What challenges did Morrison face with closing down the old location and developing exhibits in the new location? Did he supervise development? Is he still the curator, or did someone else take over (or is there a curator at all now)?
    • We used to have something like that, but everything came off as sounding too much like an advertisement so it was removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I can see how that would give the curators undue weight, although it would be useful to add any curators after Morrison. Risker (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The next section talks about current governance of the HHOF. I'd suggest developing this further to talk about the changes in governance from the time of its creation to when it became a not-for-profit. How does the NHL fit into the governance over time?
    • There aren't any sources for it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • You might want to consider some less obvious sources, e.g. biographies of Clarence Campbell, as I get the impression from the article that the NHL essentially took over the HHOF for many years, and only recently has it become an independent charity. Risker (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • In the Exhibits section, I found the quotation marks around the names of the various exhibits to be somewhat confusing because there are also actual quotes within that section as well; I haven't changed them, though. Consider italics if that is acceptable under the MOS. Whichever you do, be consistent in the usage.
    • Done
  • "...equipment worn by players during special performances."
    • I assume you meant special games, and have changed the wording; revert if I was wrong.
      • Nope, you were right. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Re the 'Dynasties' section - I've reworked the quote you used; it is a direct quote from the source material, but the source material is not particularly well worded, so better to smooth it over.
    • When describing the Canadiens' dressing room mockup, consider including the line of poetry ("To you from failing hands we throw/ The torch; be yours to hold it high"), which is from In Flanders Fields. I recall reading in one of Ken Dryden's books how deeply that line was ingrained into every player on the team, and there is obviously a special element of Canadian content there.

Sorry to hit you with so much, and to admit there will be more coming. As I mentioned on your talk page, if you don't agree with the copy edits I have made, go ahead and revert them. --Risker (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• No problem, FACs aren't supposed to be easy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Just for for Risker's sake... Scorpion has most of the sources, and I'm also kinda Wikibonked, so expect to see more of Scorpion, less of me, but I'm wathing. Maxim_(talk) 18:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Maxim, no worries. I see you and Scorpion have already been working on part I of my epic. Sorry to have had to break this up into two parts. There are fewer concerns in the last third of the article, so this should be shorter.

• • The HHOF nominating committee section lists all current members. Consider whether either of these might work better: a) cutting the list to five or six people, one each from media, players, builders, international and amateur hockey, plus the chair, or b) grouping the list of members by category (e.g., former players Lanny McDonald, John Davidson... hockey executives Harry Sinden and Bill Torrey...etc). It will give the membership list a bit more context and relate the members to the appointment criteria you have mentioned earlier.
  • I've rearranged the information in the nominating and voting paragraph to put the voting threshold together with the rest of the voting parameters; I think it matches the reference source correctly, but please verify.
    • Yeah, it matches the source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Consider reducing the list of players for whom the waiting period was waived; the list is in your references, and it will improve readability. You could edit it to "The waiting period was waived for ten players deemed exceptionally notable; most recently, Wayne Gretzky was inducted in 1999, months after his retirement. Following Gretzky's induction...."
    • Done
  • I'm unclear who makes the nominations and votes for the media honourees. Can that be fleshed out a bit more? I haven't edited that paragraph for fear of improperly organising the information.
    • Done
      • Thanks, I've done a bit of copy editing of that section now. Risker (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "Selke had refused to allow such a bad role model to be honoured and had even tried to block his induction."
    • This sentence needs a bit of work, perhaps "Selke would not condone the induction, as he considered Jackson a poor role model..." - but please verify against the source material.
      • Your version is fine. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Edit down and compress the section on Gil Stein to one paragraph to avoid WP:UNDUE - the Eagleson controversy was far more serious (with many members threatening to resign) but is not given as much attention. Note that I think the Eagleson controversy gets the appropriate amount of "space."
    • The Gil Stein controversy was pretty big too, but I did trim it down. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I removed even more. Feel free to rv. me. Maxim_(talk) 20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Somewhere along the line, consider describing how the HHOF comes into possession of its enormous collection of artifacts....bequests, donations, acquisitions (do they buy anything?).
    • I think a lot of it is donated. I'll try to find a source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has a good solid base, and you've obviously done your research and pulled together diverse reference sources. You're definitely on the right path. --Risker (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Looks like most of my questions/suggestions have been addressed satisfactorily, and the remainder may be very difficult to source, so I can now change to Support. Risker (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• ... honourees. Honourees ...". Why not a comma plus who, particularly given the short sentence that follows? Exposed at the top ... Tony (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. - must have missed that one, thanks Tony. Risker (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • *sigh*. I got edit-conflicted. For the second time today trying to fix the article per FAC. :-| Maxim_(talk) 02:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I was just fixing something else... Risker (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just one of those days... Maxim_(talk) 02:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.