Talk:1974–75 Buffalo Sabres season/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: –Grondemar 12:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I will attempt to complete this review in the next few days. –Grondemar 12:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a significant amount of work in order to reach Good Article status:


 * I'm sorry, but the prose quality is overall poor. Just in the second sentence: "After a disappointing 1974 that saw 1973–74 team fail to return to the NHL playoffs as they had the year before, the Sabres finished in a tie for the best record in the NHL in the 1974–75 regular season."  There should be "the" before 1973, "fail to return as they had the year before" sounds awkward, wikilinking 1974 to the 1973-74 NHL season makes the second part of the sentence sound strange.  The next sentence should be rewritten to avoid having to use parentheses.   There are places throughout the article where there are inappropriate parentheses, such as "Two members of the team later coached the Sabres: (Rick Dudley and Jim Schoenfeld)."  There are spaced mdashes, a MOS no-no.  Why is during in italics later on? The article overall badly needs a copyedit from someone familiar with hockey, but I'd first deal with the expansion issues below before requesting the copyedit.
 * The Regular Season section badly needs expansion. Right now it summarizes the entire season basically into one paragraph, which mentions several winning streaks but doesn't give a feel as to how the team performed and executed.  I realize that it isn't possible or desirable to give a full summary of every game with 80-odd games played, but perhaps a month-by-month breakdown would be desirable.
 * There's nothing in the article about playing style or strategy. How did the Sabres execute their game plan?  It mentions in the lead that the Flyers were brawlers; did the Sabres match that strategy, or did they go for a more-open offensive attack?  A statistical table alone can't answer these questions: prose is required.
 * You should mention when the arena picture was taken in the caption, since the HSBC Arena wasn't around in the 1970s.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * As I believe the prose and expansion issue will take longer than seven days to resolve, I am failing this Good Article Nomination.  I urge you to renominate this article only when the above concerns have been suitably addressed.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * As I believe the prose and expansion issue will take longer than seven days to resolve, I am failing this Good Article Nomination.  I urge you to renominate this article only when the above concerns have been suitably addressed.
 * As I believe the prose and expansion issue will take longer than seven days to resolve, I am failing this Good Article Nomination.  I urge you to renominate this article only when the above concerns have been suitably addressed.

Thank you. –Grondemar 22:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)